Case 3312179/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Mr Paul Bownes, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312179/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 6 October 2021, the tribunal directed the claimant to provide further information so that his unfair dismissal and Equality Act claims could be particularised. The tribunal’s case management summary and order were sent on 18 October 2021, but the claimant did not provide any further information and gave no reason for that failure.
The respondent applied on 15 December 2021 to strike out the claims for non-compliance. At the resumed hearing on 14 January 2022, the claimant did not attend and had not communicated with either the respondent or the tribunal since 6 October 2021. The tribunal waited, adjourned briefly, and confirmed that he had not joined the CVP hearing.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal considered the available information about the claimant’s absence and concluded that he was not pressing his claim. It therefore dismissed the claims. No merits findings or monetary remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the resumed hearing and had not responded to the order to provide further information. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers only to discrimination contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 and does not identify the protected characteristic in the decision text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals 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.