Case 6013329/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Tion-Jay Brown v Oxford Summer Courses Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013329/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tion-Jay Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 17 December 2025. The Tribunal delayed the hearing, made enquiries by email and telephone, resent joining instructions, and gave the claimant until noon to join before proceeding.
Employment Judge Russell considered the claimant's 10:38 email about the hearing PIN but found that it did not explain the claimant's wider non-attendance, failure to comply with earlier orders, failure to respond to the 9 December 2025 strike-out warning, or failure to actively pursue the claim.
The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. In the alternative, the claim was struck out under rule 38 because the claimant had failed to attend and the claim had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies disability discrimination. The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance, with strike out under rule 38 in the alternative, and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing category identifies public interest disclosure. The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance, with strike out under rule 38 in the alternative, and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination. The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance, with strike out under rule 38 in the alternative, and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies sex discrimination. The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance, with strike out under rule 38 in the alternative, and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- 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.