Case 6046937/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Sorby v St John the Evangelist Primary School Bradford — 2026
- Case reference
- 6046937/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Sorby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs T Sorby did not attend the final hearing on 23 July 2026. The respondent also did not appear. The tribunal found that Ms Sorby had failed to comply with orders to produce a schedule of loss, a file of documents and a witness statement. It also noted that she had not communicated with the tribunal since submitting her claim.
Employment Judge S Shore dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-attendance. The judge said that, had the claim not been dismissed under Rule 47, it would have been struck out under Rule 38 because it had no reasonable prospect of success, had been conducted unreasonably, had not complied with the Rules and tribunal orders, had not been actively pursued, and could no longer receive a fair hearing. The judgment made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers only to "the claim" and does not identify its legal type. It was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. The judge said that, had it not been dismissed, it would have been struck out under Rule 38. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 38 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.