Case 3301720/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented. For the v Stevenage Borough Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301720/2023
- Decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public at Watford on 13 October 2023 before Employment Judge Forde. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent was represented by Mr Gul, solicitor. The tribunal dealt with complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, race discrimination and discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
The tribunal struck out all of those complaints under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders, and under Rule 37(1)(d) because the complaints had not been actively pursued. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out together with the other complaints under Rule 37(1)(c) and Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out together with the other complaints under Rule 37(1)(c) and Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out together with the other complaints under Rule 37(1)(c) and Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out together with the other complaints under Rule 37(1)(c) and Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
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.