Case 6020889/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Not present or represented — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020889/2025
- Decision date
- 15 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Shadeja Webb brought claims of unfair dismissal and damages for breach of contract through a failure to give proper notice against Hornsey Lane Estate Community Association. The respondent did not present a response, and the tribunal listed a hearing under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for 15 July 2026.
The claimant and any representative failed to attend. The tribunal found no email from her about the case, and a call to the mobile number in her claim form went straight to voicemail. After leaving the video hearing open until 11.00am, Employment Judge Hyams applied rule 47 and dismissed both claims. The judge decided that dismissal was in the interests of justice, in part because it appeared that the claimant was not intent on pursuing her claims. The judgment records no monetary award.
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 non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this claim as one for damages for breach of contract through failure to give proper notice. It was dismissed under rule 47 following the claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.