Case 3201726/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Chattopadhyay v Peter Bedford Housing Association — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201726/2019
- Decision date
- 9 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Chattopadhyay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal was dealing with two linked claims brought by Mrs B Chattopadhyay against Peter Bedford Housing Association. The merits of the underlying claims were not determined: the decision was made on the respondent’s application for dismissal, alternatively strike out, because the claimant did not attend the final hearing listed for 9 to 11 September 2020.
The tribunal found that at the telephone preliminary hearing on 20 August 2020 neither party raised any problem with proceeding by Cloud Video Platform. The claimant’s husband applied on 1 September 2020 to postpone the hearing, referring to chronic depression and COVID 19 affecting witnesses. The claimant later relied on mental health as the main reason for non-attendance, but the tribunal found that the medical material supplied did not show that she was unable to attend by CVP, and the request for a GP letter was only made on 8 September 2020.
A MED 3 certificate dated 2 September 2020 said the claimant was not fit for work because of depressive disorder and lower back pain, but it did not explain why she could not attend the hearing. Judge Taylor refused the postponement on 8 September 2020, noting that the witness COVID evidence ordered by Judge Russell had not been provided and that the certificate did not support an inability to attend for the reasons given. The claimant did not attend when the hearing started on 9 September 2020.
After further directions, the tribunal considered a GP letter dated 16 September 2020. That letter said further stress could jeopardise the claimant’s mental health and that the proceedings should be adjusted accordingly, but it did not state that she could not attend hearings. The tribunal also found there was no satisfactory explanation for the witnesses’ absence by video link. Taking those matters together and applying the overriding objective, the tribunal dismissed both linked claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the final hearing. The judgment does not specify the underlying cause of action for this linked claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at the final hearing. The judgment does not specify the underlying cause of action for this linked claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 2 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.