Case 2500752/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Blake v The Burgoyne — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500752/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
- Panel members
- Ms B Kirby, Mr K Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Blake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Blake’s claims were listed for hearing at Middlesbrough by CVP on 13 April 2023 before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green, Ms B Kirby and Mr K Smith. The claimant was not present and was not represented. The respondent attended by Ms J Harrowven, General Manager.
The judgment records that the claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, notice pay and arrears of pay. No substantive findings on the merits are set out. Instead, the tribunal dismissed the claims pursuant to Rule 47 because of the claimant’s non-attendance at the hearing.
No monetary award was made and the judgment contains no separate remedy assessment, legal analysis, or findings on liability beyond the Rule 47 dismissal. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a claim for notice pay and dismisses it pursuant to Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim for arrears of pay and dismisses it pursuant to Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.