Case 3207439/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Hudson v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207439/2021
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Hudson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013. The claimant did not attend the hearing on 11 July 2022, despite being aware of it, and the tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The tribunal had previously given the claimant an opportunity, by case management orders dated 9 March 2022, to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons identified included that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had not been engaged by the respondent for the two-year qualifying period required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not provide sufficient written representations and did not attend the hearing to address the issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment expressly refers to the unfair dismissal complaint and states that the claim was struck out under Rule 47. Although the GOV.UK listing includes sex discrimination, that claim is not expressly identified in the judgment text provided. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules 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.