Case 3319454/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented. For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319454/2019
- Decision date
- 8 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by telephone at Norwich on 23 March 2020 before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. Mr Harris appeared for the respondent. The judgment records that the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the claimant had failed to comply with Judge Kurrein's Unless Order made on 6 December 2019, which required full details of the claim by 10 January 2020.
The tribunal noted that although the claimant emailed on 8 January 2020, that response did not comply with the Unless Order because it failed to identify any act or omission by the respondent capable of supporting an inference of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy or sex. The judgment therefore did not reach any substantive finding on the merits of the alleged discrimination.
The tribunal also noted that this was the second time the claimant had failed to attend hearings and said it was assumed that the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim against the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed because the claimant failed to comply with Judge Kurrein's Unless Order of 6 December 2019 requiring full details of the claim by 10 January 2020. The judgment says the claimant's email of 8 January 2020 did not identify any act or omission by the respondent capable of inferring discrimination on grounds of pregnancy. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the claimant failed to comply with Judge Kurrein's Unless Order of 6 December 2019 requiring full details of the claim by 10 January 2020. The judgment says the claimant's email of 8 January 2020 did not identify any act or omission by the respondent capable of inferring discrimination on grounds of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.