Case 6016558/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Sunderland GP Alliance Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016558/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Comb, brought a complaint of disability discrimination against Sunderland GP Alliance. At the preliminary hearing on 22 April 2025 in Newcastle Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Martin recorded that the claimant did not attend and was not represented, while the respondent was represented by Mr Ratledge of counsel.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with orders made on 14 February 2025, which required production of medical records and a disability impact statement, further information or clarification of the discrimination claims, a schedule of loss, and a jurisdiction statement. The claimant also failed to attend the hearing and gave no explanation for that absence.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and dismissed the complaint of disability discrimination. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination complaint after the claimant failed to comply with the orders made on 14 February 2025, including provision of medical records, a disability impact statement, further information or clarification of the discrimination claims, a schedule of loss, and a statement on jurisdiction. The claimant also failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 22 April 2025 and provided no explanation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.