Case 3335219/2018 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance or v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335219/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance or
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Mulvihill did not attend the hearing on 2 August 2019. She emailed the tribunal shortly before the hearing saying that she could not find a legal representative. The tribunal recorded that she had previously been represented by Slater and Gordon, but they had written on 21 June 2019 that they were no longer instructed and would not continue to act for her.
Employment Judge Hyams noted that the absence of legal representation is not a good reason for not attending an Employment Tribunal hearing. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which permits the tribunal to dismiss a claim or proceed in a party's absence after considering the available information and any practicable enquiries about the absence, the judge considered the pleadings and the information available.
The judgment records that the claims were dismissed. It contains no merits findings on the underlying sex discrimination or unfair dismissal allegations and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not separately set out the merits of this claim. The dismissal followed the claimant's non-attendance and was made under Rule 47 after the tribunal considered the available information. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately set out the merits of this claim. The dismissal followed the claimant's non-attendance and was made under Rule 47 after the tribunal considered the available information. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.