Case 3312384/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Aden v Gist Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312384/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Aden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a private preliminary hearing for case management. The claimant did not attend, the tribunal staff checked the email inbox and found no correspondence seeking a postponement or explaining the absence, and the tribunal waited a further ten minutes for attendance.
The respondent said the claimant had not complied with the tribunal direction dated 11 March 2024 requiring additional information by 25 March 2024, and that no additional information had been received. The claimant had also not completed a Case Management Agenda, and the respondent had prepared a draft list of issues without input from the claimant.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had received notice of the hearing but had chosen not to attend and not to comply with tribunal directions. It struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 47. The judgment contains no substantive merits findings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; the claim type is taken from the case context/listing supplied in the prompt. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; the claim type is taken from the case context/listing supplied in the prompt. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal 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.