Case 1302155/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No Appearance For the v Add2 Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302155/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Appearance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat at Stoke-on-Trent on 27 January 2020 before Employment Judge Gaskell. The judgment records that there was no attendance by any party at the appointed time, and that the tribunal considered the information on the tribunal file before deciding the case.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant’s claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not contain findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims, and it records no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after there was no attendance before the tribunal by any party at the appointed time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after there was no attendance before the tribunal by any party at the appointed time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after there was no attendance before the tribunal by any party at the appointed time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after there was no attendance before the tribunal by any party at the appointed time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.