Case 3335043/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Chapman v Mr M Dadkhah; and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335043/2018
- Decision date
- 10 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms K Chapman
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 October 2019 at Norwich, before Employment Judge Postle sitting alone, Ms K Chapman did not attend and was not represented. For both respondents, Mr D Brown, Counsel appeared. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had also failed to comply with Employment Judge Warren's orders made at the previous preliminary hearing on 10 April 2019.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed because they were no longer actively pursued and because of her failure to comply with the orders of 10 April 2019. The tribunal did not make any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the claimant did not attend or be represented and had failed to comply with Employment Judge Warren's orders of 10 April 2019. The judgment does not separately address the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the claimant did not attend or be represented and had failed to comply with Employment Judge Warren's orders of 10 April 2019. The judgment does not separately address the merits of this claim. | 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.