Case 3306080/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Community Spaces Northampton — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306080/2024
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 after the Claimant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing on 4 June 2025. The Tribunal considered the available information about her absence, including attempts to contact her by telephone and email before and during the hearing.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant had notice of the hearing and that she had not responded to communications from the Respondent's solicitors or the Tribunal. It concluded that there was no explanation for her absence, that she was no longer actively pursuing the claim, and that it was proportionate to dismiss the claim rather than proceed in her absence or postpone the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment is a short Rule 47 dismissal and does not set out the factual basis of the disability discrimination claim beyond the listing category. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Flexible working | The judgment is a short Rule 47 dismissal and does not set out the factual basis of the flexible working claim beyond the listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.