Case 2502277/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Race v Mr Andrew Hooper trading as Teesdale Restaurant and Coffee Shop — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502277/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fitzpatrick Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Race
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing by video on 21 March 2023, Employment Judge Fitzpatrick dismissed the claimant's claims because the claimant did not attend. The judgment records that the hearing was not objected to by the parties, that a face-to-face hearing was not practicable, and that the issues could be determined in a remote hearing.
The written record does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims. It states only that the claims were dismissed upon non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The decision also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims for non-attendance under Rule 47; it does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim type. The claim type is taken from the published case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims for non-attendance under Rule 47; it does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim type. The claim type is taken from the published case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims for non-attendance under Rule 47; it does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim type. The claim type is taken from the published case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims for non-attendance under Rule 47; it does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim type. The claim type is taken from the published case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.
- 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.