Case 3307445/2023 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307445/2023
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Reading on 23 May 2024 before Employment Judge Manley, with no attendance for the claimant and Mr A Rhodes, counsel, for the respondent, the tribunal amended the respondent's name to Silva Homes Limited and accepted the respondent's draft response out of time under Rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 37. The judgment records that the claimant had less than two years' service with the respondent and had failed to respond to a strike out warning by 31 August 2023, so the tribunal found that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment also records that an unless order had been made in respect of the complaint of disability discrimination, which would proceed only if the claimant responded. No final determination or remedy is recorded for that complaint in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant had less than 2 years' service and did not respond to the strike out warning by 31 August 2023, so the complaint was treated as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 20 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.