Case 3323250/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v N Gittings — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323250/2021
- Decision date
- 23 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for a one-day final hearing at Cambridge on 23 November 2022 concerning Mr Simon Oliver’s complaint that he had been unfairly dismissed by Nathan Gittings. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent attended in person. The tribunal noted that directions had been given on 24 March 2022 and that the case had originally been listed for 29 July 2022 before being postponed and re-listed.
Before the hearing, the tribunal was told that the Tribunal Administration office had made efforts to contact the claimant, and the respondent had also tried to contact him without success. The tribunal waited until 10:15 for the claimant to attend or otherwise contact the tribunal, but no attendance or contact occurred. In those circumstances, the tribunal found that the claimant had failed to actively pursue the claim and ordered that the unfair dismissal claim be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and had failed to actively pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.