Case 6015643/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Smith v B&M Retail Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015643/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend or have representation at a private preliminary hearing held remotely by CVP audio on 18 August 2025. The respondent applied for dismissal of the claim because of that non-attendance.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders made on 11 January 2025 and 22 April 2025. During the hearing, the claimant also did not answer two telephone calls from the tribunal clerk and did not respond to an email sent at 2.21pm directing him to join the hearing by 2.40pm.
Employment Judge Dimbylow dismissed the claimant's claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing categories identify Disability Discrimination. The judgment itself does not set out the pleaded discrimination claims in detail; it dismisses the claimant's claim as a whole under Rule 47 because of non-attendance and non-compliance with tribunal orders. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing categories identify Race Discrimination. The judgment itself does not set out the pleaded discrimination claims in detail; it dismisses the claimant's claim as a whole under Rule 47 because of non-attendance and non-compliance with tribunal orders. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.