Case 6020983/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Failed to attend For the v Mr Brotheron (non-practising solicitor/professional representative) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020983/2024
- Decision date
- 11 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Failed to attend For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant failed to attend the hearing before Employment Judge S King at the East London Employment Tribunal on 11 September 2025. The respondent was represented by Mr Brotheron, described as a non-practising solicitor/professional representative.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims because they were not being actively pursued under Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and because the claimant had failed to comply with orders under Rule 38(1)(c). Written reasons were not provided with the written record unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claims collectively and does not set out separate reasoning by claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claims collectively and does not set out separate reasoning by claim type. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claims collectively and does not set out separate reasoning by claim type. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 38(1)(c) 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.