Case 3301413/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Lorna James v Blue Heart Clinics Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301413/2024
- Decision date
- 8 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Lorna James
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints of disability discrimination. The Respondents filed an ET3 Response denying the claim, and a preliminary hearing was listed for 19 February 2025 after an earlier preliminary hearing had been postponed on the Claimant's application.
The Claimant did not attend the hearing and informed the Tribunal shortly before it began that she was unable to attend due to a family emergency, without further details or future availability. The Tribunal concluded that it could not proceed in her absence because the Respondents and the Tribunal needed to understand what the Claimant sought to complain about.
The Tribunal considered Rules 3, 38 and 47 and decided that a further postponement or strike out warning would be inappropriate. The claim was dismissed in full under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance and the inability to proceed with the hearing in her absence.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was dismissed in full under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance and the Tribunal's inability to proceed in her absence; the discrimination complaint was not adjudicated on its merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 3 Overriding Objective
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal 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.