Case 3306565/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306565/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Case Management Hearing in Norwich on 13 January 2023, Employment Judge Postle recorded that the Claimant did not attend and was not represented. The Respondent was represented by Mr Wilkinson, Counsel. The judgment states that the Claimant’s Equality Act 2010 claims based on age, religion and belief, race and sex were no longer being actively pursued.
Those claims were dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded discrimination allegations, and it does not record any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the Case Management Hearing on 13 January 2023. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the Case Management Hearing on 13 January 2023. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the Case Management Hearing on 13 January 2023. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the Case Management Hearing on 13 January 2023. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.