Case 4103122/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joanna Chapman v No appearance or representation Primark Stores Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103122/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
- Venue
- person in Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joanna Chapman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Joanna Chapman presented an ET1 on 30 November 2023 bringing a claim of unfair dismissal and an application for interim relief. The tribunal gave notice of a preliminary hearing on interim relief, and at the hearing in person in Glasgow on 15 December 2023 neither party appeared or was represented.
The tribunal clerk telephoned the claimant at the start of the hearing. The claimant confirmed that her email of 1 December 2023, in which she asked the tribunal to disregard the ET1, was intended as a withdrawal of the claims. The tribunal accepted that the wording used in the email meant withdrawal in context.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and the interim relief application under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, recording that they had been withdrawn by the claimant. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ET1 of 30 November 2023 included a claim of unfair dismissal and an application for interim relief. After a telephone call at the hearing, the claimant confirmed that her email of 1 December 2023 was intended as a withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Application for interim relief. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 52 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.