Case 1305157/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Ainsworth v Bop & Bingo - The Tour Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305157/2023
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Ainsworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by CVP before Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone. Neither party attended. The judgment records that the claimant did not attend, had failed to comply with a request for comments from the Tribunal and with Tribunal orders, and did not respond when the Tribunal telephoned him twice after the hearing should have started, including to a voicemail message left on the second call.
The Tribunal also checked Companies House and found that the respondent company had been dissolved in June 2023. Taking those circumstances into account, and referring to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the Tribunal considered whether to dismiss the claim, proceed in the claimant's absence, or adjourn the hearing.
The Tribunal decided that dismissal was the appropriate course in light of the overriding objective, including proportionality and avoiding delay and expense. The judgment therefore dismisses the claimant's claim on his non-attendance. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action in the reasons. The gov.uk listing category was unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment itself only records dismissal on non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.