Case 3202201/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Cadena Acero v Crystalcare Cleaning Services Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202201/2024
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Cadena Acero
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was presented on 9 December 2024 and the claims were identified as age discrimination, disability discrimination, and notice pay. An earlier preliminary hearing on 26 June 2025 had been postponed because of technological and language issues, and the Tribunal relisted the hearing for 1 December 2025 with a Spanish interpreter.
The Claimant did not attend the relisted hearing and was not represented. The Tribunal recorded that there had been no postponement application or notification from the Claimant, and that attempts to contact the Claimant and the person recorded as representing him did not produce an explanation for his absence.
The Tribunal considered rule 47 and Roberts v Skelmersdale College. It concluded that the Claimant had chosen not to attend, that the case could not be progressed in his absence because the claim form was unclear and required extensive particularisation, and that adjournment was not appropriate. The claims were dismissed under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claim included age discrimination and dismisses the Claimant's claims under rule 47 because he failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim included disability discrimination and dismisses the Claimant's claims under rule 47 because he failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as a notice pay claim. It does not give further particulars, and dismisses the Claimant's claims under rule 47 because he failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Roberts v Skelmersdale College [2004] IRLR 69
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.