Case 8000376/2024 · Employment Tribunal
: J S Anderson J Haria Mrs C Kidd v No Appearance T Woodman — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000376/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Sorrell Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- J S Anderson, J Haria
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: J S Anderson J Haria Mrs C Kidd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments. The respondent did not enter a response and did not appear at the hearing. The claimant also did not attend the final hearing on 6 November 2024; at 10.05am the clerk telephoned and left a voicemail asking her to contact the Tribunal, but by 10.30am there had been no response.
The Tribunal recorded earlier non-engagement by the claimant. She had not attended the final hearing on 30 May 2024, when a strike out warning was issued on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d). Although she later said on 3 June 2024 that she wished to continue and sought a fresh hearing date, the subsequent hearing listed for 19 September 2024 was postponed because she had not responded to the Standard Orders issued on 11 June 2024.
On 19 September 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant to tell her the hearing had been rescheduled for 6 November 2024 and asked her to provide the documents she intended to rely on. Since that date she made no contact with the Tribunal. In light of her failure to attend, failure to engage with the Tribunal's directions, and failure to respond to the hearing-day enquiry, the Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The reasons state that the claimant lodged a complaint of direct sex discrimination. No merits findings were made because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and the Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 47. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | The reasons refer to a complaint of holiday pay. The Tribunal made no substantive findings on the claim and dismissed the case under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend or respond further. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons refer to complaints of arrears of pay and other payments. The Tribunal did not determine the merits and dismissed the case under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The case listing identified breach of contract as one of the pleaded categories. The reasons section groups the complaints together and dismisses the claim under Rule 47 without a separate merits analysis of this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.