Case 6018165/2024 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018165/2024
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No appearance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after her employment ended on 21 March 2024. The respondent had applied to strike out the claim on the basis that it was out of time, and the tribunal listed a preliminary hearing for 8 December 2025.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and did not respond to telephone messages or an email from the tribunal clerk. The tribunal also recorded that she had not engaged with the process after lodging the claim form, including not responding to the strike-out application, the respondent's bundle or skeleton argument, or sending any communication to the tribunal about the hearing.
After waiting until 10.30am, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued and/or under rule 47 on the ground that the claimant had failed to attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued and/or dismissed under rule 47 for non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued and/or dismissed under rule 47 for non-attendance. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 47 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.