Case 3314551/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M McCook v Richmond Fellowship Hearing at: Watford Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314551/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M McCook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M McCook did not attend the public preliminary hearing on 4 March 2025. The tribunal recorded that she did not respond to its 2.10pm email re-sending the CVP link and asking her to join immediately.
Having read the case file, the tribunal was satisfied that the non-attendance followed earlier failures by the claimant to comply with tribunal orders and to respond to communication from the respondent's representative before the hearing. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.
The judgment does not set out separate findings on the underlying disability discrimination and unfair dismissal issues, and it records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not separate liability findings by claim type. It records that the claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing on 4 March 2025, did not respond to the tribunal's email re-sending the CVP link, and had previously failed to comply with tribunal orders and to respond to the respondent's representative. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate liability findings by claim type. It records that the claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing on 4 March 2025, did not respond to the tribunal's email re-sending the CVP link, and had previously failed to comply with tribunal orders and to respond to the respondent's representative. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
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.