Case 3202637/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ann Reynolds v Kismet Kebabs Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202637/2021
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ann Reynolds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the telephone hearing listed for 1 July 2021 at the East London Hearing Centre. The tribunal recorded that the notice of hearing had been sent to both parties, that neither the judge nor respondent counsel had difficulty dialling in, that the claimant had not provided a witness statement, and that there had been no recent contact from her indicating any difficulty in attending.
The claimant had emailed the tribunal on 30 June 2021 with additional evidence, showing that she knew of the hearing, and earlier emails referred to the hearing time as 11am rather than noon. The tribunal noted that an email correcting the time had been sent to the correct address. After the hearing, the claimant telephoned and said she had joined at 10:30, but the tribunal found that she had simply missed the hearing and that there were no technical difficulties preventing attendance. The claim was struck out under Rule 47, and the judge concluded that the interests of justice did not require reconsideration. The tribunal also referred to Dimitriu v Testerworld Ltd (t/a De Pharmaceutical) on non-attendance and striking out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment text does not identify the substantive claim headings; the case was struck out under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 non-attendance
- Dimitriu v Testerworld Ltd (t/a De Pharmaceutical) [2020] UKEAT 0088_19_1601
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.