Case 6001112/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not appear and was not represented For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001112/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not appear and was not represented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Khan did not attend the hearing in Sheffield by video link on 26 April 2024 and was not represented. After considering the documentation and hearing oral submissions from Mr J McHugh for the respondent, Employment Judge James found that the claimant had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the unless orders made by Employment Judge Brain on 2 January 2024.
The tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and refused relief from the sanction of dismissal under Rule 38(2), holding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant relief. The judgment records no merits findings and no monetary award.
In the alternative, the tribunal said that if it had reached a different conclusion on dismissal and relief from sanction, it would in any event have struck out the claimant's claims because the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders and/or because the claims were not being actively pursued, under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d).
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only records a procedural dismissal under Rule 38 and does not decide the merits. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only records a procedural dismissal under Rule 38 and does not decide the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only records a procedural dismissal under Rule 38 and does not decide the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only records a procedural dismissal under Rule 38 and does not decide the merits. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only records a procedural dismissal under Rule 38 and does not decide the merits. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only records a procedural dismissal under Rule 38 and does not decide the merits. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 38(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunal 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.