Case 1303286/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Luke Barratt Davis v Midlands Accommodation Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303286/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Luke Barratt Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video at Birmingham on 12 December 2024 before Employment Judge Connolly. The tribunal corrected the respondent's name to Midlands Accommodation Limited. The claimant was not present or represented at the final hearing.
After delaying the start of the hearing and considering the information available about the claimant's absence, together with his non-compliance with the case management orders of 12 August 2024, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment states, for the avoidance of doubt, that all the claimant's complaints were thereby dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 following the claimant's failure to attend the final hearing; the judgment says all complaints were thereby dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 following the claimant's failure to attend the final hearing; the judgment says all complaints were thereby dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal 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.