Case 6012731/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Foster v David Lloyd Leisure Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012731/2025
- Decision date
- 2 September 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Foster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Loy dismissed all of Miss T Foster’s claims against David Lloyd Leisure Ltd under Rule 47 at a private preliminary hearing on 2 September 2026. The claimant did not attend or have representation. She had also failed to attend the hearing on 28 August 2026 and was notified that day of the September hearing. She did not respond to the tribunal administration’s attempts to contact her on 2 September and gave no explanation for her absence.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to engage in pursuing her claim and had not complied with earlier directions, including the exchange of witness statements. It referred to its limited resources and the need for each case to receive a proportionate share of tribunal time. It found no indication that the claimant was pursuing her claim. The final hearing listed for 5 to 16 October 2026 was vacated. The judgment does not identify the individual claim types or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | All claims were dismissed under Rule 47. The judgment does not identify the individual causes of action, so they cannot be classified separately from the supplied text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.