Case 2601740/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Glass v R1) Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd R2) Extra Personnel Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601740/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Glass
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant presented claims of sex discrimination and breach of contract arising from her employment as a Production Worker for the second Respondent at the first Respondent’s premises. The tribunal recorded that she had been employed from 26 October 2020 to 21 April 2021. The case was listed for a telephone Case Management Hearing / Open Preliminary Hearing, and the parties were notified in advance. The Claimant’s solicitor said he would not be representing her at the hearing, although she had been told what was required.
When the hearing took place, the Respondents’ representatives attended but the Claimant did not join the call. The tribunal put the matter back by 30 minutes and staff tried to contact her, but without success. The judge found that no indication had been given before the hearing that she would not attend, and that it was not possible to make progress without her input.
An Unless Order was then sent requiring a satisfactory explanation for her failure to attend, failing which the claim would be struck out in its entirety for not being actively pursued. The Claimant responded immediately: she apologised and said she had been working. The tribunal held that this was not a satisfactory explanation.
Applying Rule 38(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution of Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the judge was satisfied that the non-attendance without a satisfactory explanation meant the claims were not being actively pursued. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim in its entirety and recorded that the final hearing listed for 22 May 2023 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Struck out in its entirety under Rule 38(d) after the Claimant did not join the telephone preliminary hearing and did not provide a satisfactory explanation. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out in its entirety under Rule 38(d) after the Claimant did not join the telephone preliminary hearing and did not provide a satisfactory explanation. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution of 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.
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.