Case 3302797/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Laura Carter v Challenge-trg Recruitment Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302797/2023
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Jack
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Laura Carter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Jack listed the matter for 16 February 2024 to decide whether any claim should be permitted to proceed. The reasons record that an earlier order made on 18 August 2023 had stated the claim would stand dismissed on 8 September 2023 unless the claimant explained in writing why it should not be dismissed, and that the ET1 appeared to be for unfair (constructive) dismissal although the claimant did not have the necessary two years' service to bring such a claim.
The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal noted that the ET1 did not provide a phone number, the respondent did not have one, and the clerk emailed the claimant in an effort to make contact. The tribunal waited until 10:30 but received no response to the email and found that there was no information about the reason for the claimant's absence.
Applying Rule 47, the tribunal decided that, despite making the practicable enquiries, it had no information about the claimant's absence and therefore dismissed the claim. No remedy was awarded or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons say the ET1 appeared to be for unfair (constructive) dismissal and that the claimant did not have the necessary two years' service to bring such a claim. The claim was then dismissed after the claimant did not attend the hearing and no information about the absence was available. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- two years' service requirement
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.