Case 3303112/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Not present or represented — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303112/2021
- Decision date
- 3 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant originally brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. At a preliminary hearing on 30 June 2022, he said the discrimination claim was age discrimination rather than disability discrimination, and he was directed to provide further details of the claims. A later email from Rickmansworth Citizens Advice Bureau stated that the claimant was no longer pursuing age or disability discrimination and gave details only of the unfair dismissal claim, with a schedule of loss.
At the hearing on 21 November 2022, conducted by telephone, neither party responded to invitations to join the hearing after the judge called the contact numbers for both sides twice. The tribunal considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims under rule 47. It found that the discrimination claims had not been withdrawn, but were clearly not being pursued. It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant appeared not to be pressing it and there appeared to be no good reason for his non-attendance, while noting that he could apply for reconsideration if he had a good reason for not attending.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 after neither party attended the hearing; the tribunal concluded the claimant appeared not to be pressing the claim and there appeared to be no good reason for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant had said at a preliminary hearing that his discrimination claim was age discrimination, but a later email stated he was no longer pursuing age discrimination. The tribunal treated this as not a withdrawal but as a claim not being pursued, and dismissed it under rule 47. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant originally claimed disability discrimination, later said the discrimination claim was age discrimination and not disability discrimination, and a later email stated he was no longer pursuing disability discrimination. The tribunal treated this as not a withdrawal but as a claim not being pursued, and dismissed it under rule 47. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.