Case 6007585/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Galea v PP Management Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007585/2026
- Decision date
- 9 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smyth Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Galea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Galea did not attend the final hearing on 9 July 2026. The Tribunal was satisfied that she had notice of the hearing, including the CVP joining details, and recorded that attempts to contact her by telephone and email received no response. She provided no explanation for her absence.
Employment Judge Smyth considered adjourning, proceeding in the claimant’s absence, and dismissing the claim under rule 47. A decisive factor was that Miss Galea had not filed or served a witness statement and therefore had not put forward evidence supporting her pleaded case. The judge concluded that hearing the respondent’s evidence and conducting a full merits assessment would be artificial and disproportionate, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim under rule 47.
The respondent’s application for costs and/or a preparation time order was not determined. The Tribunal directed that the claimant be given an opportunity to respond, noting that no detailed costs or preparation time schedule was before it. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and had not filed or served a witness statement. The Tribunal did not conduct a full merits assessment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
- 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.