Case 3201113/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Keeley Adams v London Hoist Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201113/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Keeley Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hallen sitting alone at the East London Hearing Centre on 26 September 2019. The Claimant, Miss Keeley Adams, did not attend. The Respondent, London Hoist Limited, was represented by Mr Brian Parker, General Manager.
The Tribunal struck out the Claimant’s Claim Form because she failed to attend the Preliminary Hearing listed for that day. The hearing had been notified to the parties on 12 June 2019. No findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims were made, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Claim Form was struck out because the Claimant did not attend the Preliminary Hearing on 26 September 2019. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Claim Form was struck out because the Claimant did not attend the Preliminary Hearing on 26 September 2019. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Claim Form was struck out because the Claimant did not attend the Preliminary Hearing on 26 September 2019. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.