Case 3207298/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Benahmed v Superdrug Stores plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207298/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Benahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had brought a number of disability discrimination allegations against the respondent, including an allegation of failure to make reasonable adjustments, arising from her former employment. The respondent disputed the claims.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not attend, and was not represented at, the preliminary hearing on 6 October 2022. It also recorded a history of non-attendance and failure actively to pursue the case, including non-attendance at an earlier preliminary hearing and non-compliance with tribunal orders requiring further particulars of the alleged discriminatory acts.
Having regard to that history, the prior strike-out warning, the notice given of the hearing date, and the claimant's failure to attend on 6 October 2022, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment states that, had the hearing been open, the judge would have been minded also to strike out the claim for non-compliance and failure actively to pursue it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment says the claimant brought a number of disability discrimination allegations, including a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing; the judgment does not determine the substantive allegations. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.