Case 3301839/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Anderson v G P Homecare Limited t/a Radis Community Care — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301839/2025
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Anderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Anderson did not attend the Watford hearing on 11 November 2025. Employment Judge Quill, sitting alone, recorded that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 and that all future hearing dates were cancelled.
The judgment notes that there was no appearance or representation for the claimant, and that Ms H Bollard, associate, attended for the respondent. The tribunal gave reasons orally at the hearing and stated that written reasons would only be provided if requested in writing within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
The supplied record does not contain merits findings or any monetary award. It records only a procedural dismissal following the claimant's non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The written judgment states that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not set out separate merits findings for this claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not set out separate merits findings for this claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment states that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not set out separate merits findings for this claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not set out separate merits findings for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.