Case 2500334/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance v North East Autism Society — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500334/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard at a postponed private preliminary hearing by telephone on 27 September 2022. The judge was satisfied that notice of the hearing had been properly served on the claimants' representative, but neither claimant nor any representative attended. The claims concerned Mr A Smith and Ms A Liddle, who said they had been unfairly dismissed for refusing to take the Covid-19 vaccine required for staff working in a care home, and they also pursued claims based on religion/philosophical belief; Ms Liddle also pursued disability discrimination, and Mr Smith's disability discrimination complaint had already been dismissed on 15 June 2022 after withdrawal.
The tribunal recorded that, after the original preliminary hearing on 1 July 2022, both claimants were ordered to provide further information about their asserted philosophical beliefs, and Ms Liddle was ordered to provide a disability impact statement. Those orders were not complied with by 15 July 2022, and strike-out warnings were issued on 1 August and 10 August 2022. Further statements were later sent on 16 August 2022, but the judge found that Ms Liddle's account showed the alleged disability arose after dismissal, so it could not found a disability discrimination complaint at the time of the complained-of acts.
The judge also held that neither claimant had properly identified a religion or philosophical belief within the relevant criteria set out in the reasons. The tribunal noted that the claimants and their representative had not addressed the case law referred to in the case management summary concerning dismissal for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine. On that basis, and because the claims were not being actively pursued and had no reasonable prospect of success, the tribunal dismissed Mr Smith's unfair dismissal and religion/belief discrimination claims, and dismissed Ms Liddle's unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and religion/belief discrimination claims, pursuant to Rules 37 and 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Smith's unfair dismissal complaint. Dismissed under Rules 37 and 47 after non-attendance; the reasons say the claims arose from refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine required for staff working in a care home. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Mr Smith's religion/philosophical belief discrimination complaint. Dismissed under Rules 37 and 47; the tribunal found neither claimant had properly identified a religion or philosophical belief meeting the relevant criteria. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Mr Smith's disability discrimination complaint had already been dismissed on 15 June 2022 following his withdrawal of that complaint, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the reasons. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ms Liddle's unfair dismissal complaint. Dismissed under Rules 37 and 47 after non-attendance; the reasons say the claims arose from refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine required for staff working in a care home. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Ms Liddle's disability discrimination complaint. The tribunal held it had no reasonable prospect of success because the disability relied on in her statement was said to have arisen after dismissal, not at the time of the alleged discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rules 37 and 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.