Case 3310220/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr Richard Hanson (Partner) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310220/2022
- Decision date
- 26 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Karen King’s claim against Nicholls Christie & Crocker was struck out by Employment Judge Alliott, sitting alone at Watford on 15 March 2023. The claimant did not attend the hearing; the respondent was represented by Mr Richard Hanson, Partner.
The tribunal struck out the claim on four stated grounds. It found that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant had been unreasonable under Rule 37(1)(6), that there had been non-compliance with Tribunal orders under Rule 37(1)(c), that the claim had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d), and that the claimant had failed to attend the hearing under Rule 47.
No substantive liability findings or remedy award were recorded. The written judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type; it records that the claim was struck out in full. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(6)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 47
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.