Case 3206680/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Hughes v Heheals Pharmaceutical Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206680/2021
- Decision date
- 14 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muir Wilson
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Hughes brought a claim described in the judgment as unfair (constructive) dismissal against Heheals Pharmaceutical Services Ltd. The tribunal recorded repeated case management directions, a strike-out warning, and the claimant's email saying she had difficulty opening tribunal emails and had recently suffered a bereavement. The final hearing was converted from 26 April 2022 to 22 July 2022, and the tribunal sent notice of that date to the parties' email addresses, which had been used throughout the case.
Neither party attended the final hearing on 22 July 2022. The tribunal clerk contacted the claimant, who said she had not known about the hearing and wanted the case to continue; she also asked for future correspondence by post. The tribunal considered the information available under Rule 47 and the guidance in Roberts v Skelmersdale College [2004] IRLR 69, and noted the absence of any statements, bundle, agreed list of issues, or substantive evidence from either side. The tribunal also observed that, if the matter were treated as a constructive dismissal claim, the claimant would have to prove a repudiatory breach of contract and that she resigned in response to it.
The tribunal was not persuaded that either party had been unaware of the fixed hearing date. It accepted that the claimant had suffered a family bereavement, but noted that she had not made further contact with the tribunal after April 2022 apart from sending a handwritten schedule of loss in June 2022. Having regard to the history of non-compliance, the absence of attendance, and the lack of evidence needed to evaluate the claim, the tribunal decided not to postpone or adjourn the hearing. It dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because the claimant had not attended and was not represented at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim form described the case as unfair (constructive) dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because the claimant failed, without a good excuse, to attend the final hearing; there was no merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- 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.