Case 3320553/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr James Roddy (paralegal) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320553/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Tiffany Gordon did not attend the final hearing on 7 December 2020. The tribunal recorded that notices had been sent to her postal address and by email, including an email on 22 October 2019 asking her to notify any change of address, the order listing the case for 7 December 2020, and a reminder on 2 December 2020. When the hearing began, the clerk was unable to connect the claimant on her mobile number and there was no response to an email sent that morning.
Employment Judge Alliott proceeded in the claimant’s absence. The tribunal noted that the earlier order directing a joint bundle and exchange of witness statements had not been complied with, and that Mr James Roddy had been unable to contact the claimant despite several attempts. In light of the claimant’s non-attendance and failure to pursue the proceedings, the tribunal struck out the claim and recorded that it was dismissed as not actively pursued under Rule 37(i)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The claim was struck out/dismissed for not being actively pursued under Rule 37(i)(d) after the claimant failed to attend and did not comply with case directions. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(i)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.