Case 6002152/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Ms A Parker (In house solicitor) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002152/2023
- Decision date
- 3 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSerco Ltd was substituted as the correct respondent. The claimant did not attend the hearing on 3 November 2025, and neither the Tribunal nor the respondent had heard from him despite correspondence being sent to the email address previously used and the respondent sending a hearing file and other emails.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim in full under Employment Tribunal Rule 47. It found that the claimant had not taken steps to pursue the claim since February 2024, had not attended the hearing, and that dismissal was consistent with the overriding objective. The judge also recorded concerns, on the face of it, about the merits of the ordinary unfair dismissal and race-related claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed in full under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend and had not taken steps to pursue the claim. The tribunal also noted, on the face of it, that the claimant did not have qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was dismissed in full under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend and had not taken steps to pursue the claim. The tribunal noted, on the face of it, a clear and obvious explanation for dismissal unconnected with race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 47
- overriding objective
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.