Case 3311321/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Kaur v Sbfm — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311321/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a private preliminary hearing listed for case management. The claimant, Ms J Kaur, did not attend. The respondent attended through Mr S Pybus and Ms R Cleary, both HRBPs.
The tribunal noted that an earlier preliminary hearing on 5 March 2024 had been postponed on the claimant's application because she said she would be travelling. She was directed to provide proof of the travel booking, but no response was received despite a reminder from the tribunal dated 10 April 2024. She was also asked to complete a case management agenda for the hearing, but she did not do so.
Ms Kaur failed to join the hearing by 2:07pm, and tribunal staff confirmed that no emails had been received from her. In light of her non-attendance and failure to comply with the direction to provide details of her travel booking, the tribunal concluded that she did not intend to take part and was not actively pursuing her claim.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) for failure actively to pursue the claim and Rule 47 for non-attendance. No substantive findings on the underlying claims were made and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claims; it records that the whole claim was struck out after the claimant failed to attend the case management hearing and failed to comply with directions. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunal 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.