Case 3205468/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Catarina Capapinha v Gil Monsalves Martins — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205468/2022
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Catarina Capapinha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Catarina Capapinha lodged a claim on 29 October 2022 for unfair dismissal and an unspecified discrimination claim. After a case management hearing on 7 August 2023, Employment Judge Millns directed her to confirm whether she needed an interpreter, explain her earlier non-attendance, respond to the Tribunal’s request for particulars of the discrimination complaint, and provide a statement of remedy. The claimant did not comply, and the matter was relisted after a further hearing on 2 November 2023 could not proceed because of a language barrier.
The final preliminary hearing was listed for 19 January 2024 by CVP. Notice was sent twice, a Portuguese (European) interpreter attended, and the Tribunal tried to contact the claimant by telephone and email on the morning of the hearing, including a voicemail telling her to attend by 10.20am or contact the Tribunal if she had technical difficulties. The claimant did not attend and did not respond further. The respondent applied for dismissal and relied on the file, including its submission that the claimant had not worked for the respondent and that any employment with Clermont Hotel Management Limited had lasted from 20 April 2022 to 29 June 2022, meaning the unfair dismissal claim would in any event face service and correct-employer issues.
The Tribunal considered the available information about the absence, the nature of the claims, and the issues apparent from the pleadings, including the lack of particulars for the discrimination claim. It concluded there was no satisfactory explanation for the claimant’s non-attendance, that it had made all practicable enquiries, and that it was not appropriate to hear the case in her absence. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013, having regard to the overriding objective in Rule 2. No merits findings and no monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and no satisfactory explanation for absence was provided. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Unspecified discrimination claim dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. The claim form did not specify the protected characteristic or the type of discrimination, and the tribunal did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals 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.