Case 6010073/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Tina Heale v Stagecoach Devon Ltd t/a Stagecoach Southwest — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010073/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Tina Heale
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the telephone preliminary hearing on 4 June 2025. The tribunal clerk was unable to reach her by telephone during the hearing.
The tribunal recorded earlier steps in the case, including notice of the hearing, a reminder and order for clarification, and attempts by the respondent to obtain material and contact the claimant. Taking the available information into account, Employment Judge Woodhead concluded that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 for non-attendance; it does not adjudicate the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 for non-attendance; it does not adjudicate the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 for non-attendance; it does not adjudicate the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 for non-attendance; it does not adjudicate the merits of this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 (Non-attendance) of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.