Case 6002183/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fiorindo Adesi v The Adelaide Lodge Care Home LLP RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002183/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Fiorindo Adesi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing heard in private by telephone on 25 April 2024 before Employment Judge Midgley. The claimant, Mr Fiorindo Adesi, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Mr R Dempsey, solicitor.
The judgment records that the Tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant failed to attend the hearing and/or failed to notify the Tribunal that he was unaware of the hearing date or how to attend it. Tribunal staff telephoned him during the hearing, and he said he was unable to participate because he was working. He gave no indication that he was actively pursuing his claims or wished to do so.
No merits findings were made on the underlying allegations. The dismissal was made pursuant to rules 47 and 37. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing under rules 47 and 37 because the claimant did not attend, did not notify the Tribunal that he was unaware of the hearing date or how to attend, and when telephoned said he was working and unable to participate. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rules 47 and 37
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.