Case 3313582/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented. For the v Horizons Global Technology Ltd and Mr T Ajayi — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313582/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented. For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich by CVP on 1 July 2024 before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant, Mr S Ross-Goulding, did not attend and was not represented. The respondents, Horizons Global Technology Limited and Mr Taiwo Ajayi, were represented by Mr Bryan, Counsel.
Under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Postle dismissed the claimant’s claims because of his failure to attend the afternoon hearing. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits of the unfair dismissal or disability discrimination allegations and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal 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.