Case 3202118/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Mary Percival v Care By US Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202118/2023
- Decision date
- 26 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mack Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Mary Percival
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Mary Percival’s claims for direct age discrimination and unauthorised deductions were dismissed at the hearing on 21 May 2024. Employment Judge Mack recorded that the claimant had been told about the hearing at the last preliminary hearing on 15 March 2024 and by a notice sent on 24 March 2024, but she did not attend and was not represented.
The Tribunal waited until 12.15pm before proceeding. It tried to contact the claimant on her mobile phone on four occasions between 10.00am and 12.00pm, and the respondent’s solicitor also emailed her at about 11.30am asking her to contact the Tribunal. The claimant did not respond and did not tell the Tribunal that she could not attend.
The Tribunal dismissed both claims under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judge said that dismissal was in accordance with the overriding objective. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of The 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.