Case 1306790/2020 · Employment Tribunal
No Appearance For the v Mr J Merry (Solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1306790/2020
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Appearance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Gaskell on 23 February 2024. The claimant was not in attendance. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to adjourn the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim for want of jurisdiction under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claim for unpaid holiday pay for want of jurisdiction under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or Regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay dismissed for want of jurisdiction under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or Regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- Regulation 30(2) WTR 1998
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.