Case 3309560/2022 · Employment Tribunal
failed to attend For the v Mr Hughes (in-house advocate) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309560/2022
- Decision date
- 30 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mrs A Brown, Mrs H Gunnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
failed to attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter by video at Bury St Edmunds on 2 May 2023 before Employment Judge Dobbie, sitting with Mrs A Brown and Mrs H Gunnell. The Claimant did not attend; the Respondent was represented by Mr Hughes, in-house advocate.
The judgment records that the Claimant’s appeal under rule 105 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 was struck out under rule 37 of the Rules. The tribunal said this was because the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, and the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award was made. The written record states that, because reasons had already been given orally, written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal described the matter as the Claimant’s appeal under rule 105 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and struck it out under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 105 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.