Case 2419672/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Semper v Gray Healthcare Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419672/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Semper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was the second preliminary hearing for case management. The claimant, Mr A Semper, did not attend either the first hearing or the hearing on 10 September 2021, and he was not contactable by telephone that afternoon. The tribunal recorded that he had not been in recent communication with either the respondent or the tribunal and had not complied with case management orders made at the previous hearing.
In those circumstances, Employment Judge Dunlop dismissed the claimant’s claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The decision was made without any merits findings on the underlying discrimination allegations, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the second preliminary hearing, had also not attended the first, was not contactable by telephone, and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the second preliminary hearing, had also not attended the first, was not contactable by telephone, and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.