Case 3303844/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Cornelius v The London Borough of Haringey — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303844/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr L Hoey, Ms H Bharadia
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Cornelius
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's claims were for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation and possibly holiday pay. Neither the claimant nor her representative attended the hearing on 14, 15 or 16 October 2024, although her representative communicated with the Tribunal by email until 15 October.
The Tribunal refused the claimant's applications to postpone the hearing and to strike out the respondent's response. It found that the respondent's conduct did not justify strike-out and that any remaining disclosure or bundle issues could have been addressed at the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed all complaints under rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend or be represented. It also recorded a preliminary view that the race discrimination and victimisation claims lacked evidence likely to shift the burden, that the unfair dismissal claim appeared likely to fall within the band of reasonable responses, and that the holiday pay claim had not been clarified.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment treated the victimisation complaint with the race discrimination complaint and dismissed all complaints under rule 47. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as possibly also a holiday pay claim and stated that all complaints were dismissed under rule 47; the claimant had not clarified the disputed calculation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 47
- rule 37(1)(b)
- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(e)
- rule 2 overriding objective
- band of reasonable responses
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.