Case 3303853/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Despite telephoning his contact number 7 times, the Claimant failed to pick up and so did not attend the Hearing today For the v Miss James, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303853/2019
- Decision date
- 6 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Despite telephoning his contact number 7 times, the Claimant failed to pick up and so did not attend the Hearing today For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote papers hearing on the Respondent's application to strike out the claim. The hearing was conducted by telephone during the COVID-19 pandemic and there was no objection to that format. The Claimant did not attend the morning hearing despite seven telephone attempts to contact him.
Employment Judge Postle recorded the Claimant's continued non-compliance with the tribunal's orders and the failure to provide medical evidence in the form of a GP report. In that context, the tribunal found that the claim was no longer actively pursued.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's constructive dismissal claim and his Equality Act 2010 claims relating to disability. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed on the Respondent's application to strike out after the Claimant did not attend the remote hearing, had continued to fail to comply with Judge's Orders, and had not provided medical evidence in the form of a GP report. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on the Respondent's application to strike out for the same reasons: non-attendance, continued non-compliance with orders, and failure to provide a GP report, leading the tribunal to find the claim was no longer actively pursued. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.