Case 1302811/2022 · Employment Tribunal
WAYNE TATTON v Midland and General Scaffolding Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1302811/2022
- Decision date
- 30 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
WAYNE TATTON
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed at Birmingham remotely by CVP on 11 January 2023 before Employment Judge Manley. The Claimant, Wayne Tatton, did not attend. The Respondent was represented by Mr Martin Leadbeater, Managing Director of James Stevens Ltd.
The Tribunal recorded that it made enquiries by email and telephone of the Claimant as to whether he would attend the hearing, but received no response. It also recorded that the Respondent said it had not received any information from the Claimant in respect of the hearing and invited the Tribunal to dismiss the claim.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 (as amended). No substantive findings on the underlying merits of any claim, and no remedy award, were recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not specify the substantive heads of claim. The Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend, did not respond to the Tribunal's email and telephone enquiries about attendance, and the Respondent asked for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 (as amended)
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.