Case 6017619/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Natasha Stevens v Hygiene Contracts Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017619/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Othen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Natasha Stevens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNatasha Stevens' claim against Hygiene Contracts Ltd was listed for a case management preliminary hearing by CVP on 2 April 2025 before Employment Judge V Othen. The claimant did not attend and gave no reason for her absence. The tribunal recorded that notice of the hearing had been sent to the email address on the claim form, that the tribunal tried to contact her by telephone on five occasions, and that an email sent at about 10.10 had not produced any response by 10.30.
The respondent's representative told the tribunal that she had emailed the claimant on 25 March 2025 with a copy of the agenda, and that the email had been received because a read receipt was returned. In those circumstances, the tribunal concluded that it was in accordance with the overriding objective to dismiss the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment records no substantive findings on the underlying unfair dismissal and sex discrimination complaints and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 following the claimant's failure to attend the case management preliminary hearing; the judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 following the claimant's failure to attend the case management preliminary hearing; the judgment does not determine the merits of the sex discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 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.