Case 3304642/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Ravenhill v RH Commercial Vehicles Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304642/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Ravenhill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing heard by video in private at Norwich on 8 September 2025 before Employment Judge T Brown. The claimant, Miss C Ravenhill, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, RH Commercial Vehicles Limited, was represented by Ms E Tegerdine, solicitor.
The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had been sent and had received notice of the hearing, that enquiries into her non-attendance revealed no correspondence or communication explaining her absence or seeking a postponement, and that she had failed to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 24 January 2025, reiterated on 30 May 2025. It also recorded that she did not respond to the Tribunal's notice dated 7 August 2025 explaining why she should be struck out for non-compliance.
Having considered the tribunal file and a 44-page bundle prepared by the respondent, and having considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal was satisfied that the rule's conditions were met and that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim. The record contains no substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim(s).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The record does not identify the underlying substantive claim(s). The tribunal dismissed the claim at a preliminary hearing under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented and had not complied with prior Tribunal orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.