Case 3301249/2022 · Employment Tribunal
no attendance For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301249/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Ms A brown
Parties
1 namedClaimant
no attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a final hearing on 9 to 17 January 2025, but the claimant did not attend on the first day. The claimant's lay representative emailed the tribunal on 8 January 2025 saying that, because of ongoing health issues and memory and breathing difficulties, the tribunal was not a viable option and asking for a delayed hearing. The tribunal did not receive a separate adjournment application, and the medical material previously sent on 18 December 2024 described several conditions and symptoms but did not say the claimant was unable to attend or participate in the final hearing.
The tribunal issued directions on 9 January 2025 requiring the claimant to say whether the 8 January email was an adjournment application and, if so, to provide medical evidence addressing fitness to attend or participate, when fitness might return, and whether improvement was likely in the next 6 to 12 months. The claimant's lay representative replied with an outpatient letter dated 16 October 2024 confirming a renal transplant, but it did not answer the tribunal's questions. The accompanying email attaching medical information was blank. The respondent said it would oppose any adjournment and drew attention to the tribunal's powers under rule 47.
On 10 January 2025 neither the claimant nor his representative attended. The tribunal noted that notice of the hearing had been sent via the lay representative named on the ET1 and that the claimant had referred to the hearing in the 8 January email. It also recorded that a previous hearing listed for 29 February to 8 March 2024 had already been adjourned for the claimant's ill health and an issue about a respondent witness giving evidence from abroad, and that the complaint related to events in 2021. The tribunal decided there was no postponement application before it; in any event, it would have refused one because it was unsupported by medical evidence and the claimant's own position was that he did not know whether his health would improve if the hearing were postponed. The claim was therefore dismissed for non-attendance under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not determine the merits of the pleaded claim. It dismisses the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and did not provide the information directed by the tribunal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
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.