Case 6029516/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ameera Adan v Roost Opco 1 Limited t/a Student Roost — 2026
- Case reference
- 6029516/2025
- Decision date
- 28 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michael Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ameera Adan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Michael Butler, sitting alone at Nottingham by CVP on 28 July 2026, struck out Ms Ameera Adan's unfair dismissal claim against Roost Opco 1 Limited t/a Student Roost. At the preliminary hearing on 27 February 2026, Employment Judge Brewer had issued a strike-out warning because she lacked the requisite two years' continuous employment. She did not respond to that warning.
The tribunal dismissed the claims of discrimination on grounds of age, pregnancy or maternity, religion or belief and disability, together with harassment, victimisation, unpaid wages and whistleblowing detriment. The claimant had failed to comply with orders requiring further information so that the respondent and tribunal could understand her claims. The judgment explained that the claims listed included both those expressly claimed and those mentioned without certainty about whether they were being pursued.
The claimant attended neither preliminary hearing. In an email bearing a date the tribunal considered erroneous, she attributed her inability to attend the February hearing to mental health issues, her father's illness, a broken telephone and her living conditions. On 28 July, she answered the clerk's telephone call but disconnected when the clerk identified herself as calling from the tribunal. A second call reached a recorded message stating that she was on another line. The judge was satisfied that she had received the earlier hearing summary and orders and knew about the July hearing; joining instructions had been sent on 17 July 2026.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not actively pursuing her claims, given her failure to reply to correspondence, attend two preliminary hearings or comply with case management orders. It held that the steps taken met the requirements of Rule 47 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 for dismissal for non-attendance. All claims other than unfair dismissal were dismissed on that basis. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous employment and did not respond to the strike-out warning. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic associated with this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. The judgment does not identify an associated protected characteristic. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024: dismissal for non-attendance at a hearing
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.