Case 3301600/2024 · Employment Tribunal
no attendance For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301600/2024
- Decision date
- 4 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
no attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 9 December 2024. The respondent said it had tried to engage with him, but had received no response, he had not filed an agenda for the hearing, and he had not replied to a letter seeking further details about his complaints. The respondent invited dismissal under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal telephoned the claimant and he said he wished to withdraw his claim and had told his union representative. Because he did not join the hearing or confirm withdrawal in writing, the tribunal did not dismiss the case on the basis of withdrawal. It instead dismissed the claim under rule 47 because of the claimant’s non-attendance. The tribunal said it could not continue in the claimant’s absence, that the hearing was for case management and exploration of the complaints, and that proceeding would not be in accordance with the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive complaints. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.