Case 3307504/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Daveigas v Fortrade — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307504/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Daveigas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss T Daveigas did not attend the hearing listed for 16 February 2024 at Watford Employment Tribunal. The tribunal called her contact number after 10.00am, emailed her, and received no reply. By 10.30am she had not joined the CVP hearing, and the tribunal noted that it had received no correspondence since the claim was presented.
The respondent, Fortrade, was represented by Ms Acheampong, litigation consultant. It told the tribunal that it had had no contact from the claimant and that she had not responded to the agenda it sent to her.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal considered whether to dismiss the claim, proceed in the claimant's absence, or adjourn. It found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in failing to attend without explanation and decided that dismissal was proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective, including avoiding delay and saving expense. The claim was therefore dismissed on non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal decided under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 to dismiss rather than adjourn or proceed in her absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.