Case 3332515/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Unrepresented and did not appear herself For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332515/2018
- Decision date
- 16 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Unrepresented and did not appear herself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3 April 2019 before Employment Judge Bloch QC at Watford, the claimant was unrepresented and did not appear herself. The judgment records that the respondent was represented by Mr C Kelly, Counsel.
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim and disability discrimination claim. The reason given was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear either complaint, relying on section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the unfair dismissal claim and section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 for the disability discrimination claim. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
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.