Case 3200012/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Rose v RST Landrovers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200012/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Allen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Rose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Rose did not attend the hearing on 11 July 2022 and was not represented. The clerk called the two telephone numbers the claimant had provided, but there was no answer. The tribunal also checked the post and email inboxes and received no communication from the claimant explaining her absence.
Employment Judge F Allen recorded that the claimant would have been aware of the date and time of the re-listed preliminary hearing. The Record of Preliminary Hearing and Case Management Orders sent on 13 June 2022 referred to the hearing on 11 July 2022, and the Notice of Preliminary Hearing sent on 17 June 2022 also gave the same date and time together with the CVP link and guest PIN.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and having regard to Rule 2 and the overriding objective, the tribunal dismissed the claim. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim and records dismissal solely because of the claimant's non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.