Case 3324279/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Dooley v Mr S Preston — 2021
- Case reference
- 3324279/2019
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Dooley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Dooley worked for Mr S Preston as a bar tender at the Railway Inn in Ipswich from 10 October 2016 until her summary dismissal on 12 August 2019 for alleged gross misconduct. She presented an unfair dismissal claim on 14 November 2019. The respondent’s response said she had been fairly dismissed for using foul and abusive language towards and in the presence of customers.
The case was listed and relisted several times. The claimant asked for the original August 2020 hearing to be adjourned because she was not sufficiently prepared. At the subsequent case management hearing on 21 January 2021, neither the claimant nor her husband could participate, and the Employment Judge proceeded in their absence, identified the issues, and listed the final hearing for 14 July 2021. The tribunal also wrote on 8 July 2021 to confirm that the hearing would proceed in person.
Neither party attended the final hearing on 14 July 2021. The tribunal noted there was no correspondence on the file showing that the case had been settled, but concluded that the parties had notice of the hearing and that the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim. The judgment therefore dismissed the claim without deciding the underlying unfair dismissal issues on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal did not determine the merits of the dismissal complaint. It dismissed the claim because it was no longer being actively pursued by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.