Case 1306933/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Harrison v Switch Electrical Whole Midlands Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306933/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Harrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for hearing at Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 4 February 2020 before Employment Judge Cookson. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended. The judgment records that the claimant did not attend the hearing, did not offer any reason for non-attendance, and did not answer his mobile phone when the tribunal office attempted to contact him.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims in accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The judgment says the claimant had failed to reply to tribunal correspondence and had failed to actively pursue his claims. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the pleaded claims, and no monetary award was made.
The written record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless either party requested them within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing, did not offer any reason for non-attendance, did not answer the tribunal office when contacted, and had failed to reply to tribunal correspondence or actively pursue the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 for the same reasons: non-attendance, no explanation, no response to attempted contact, and failure to engage with the proceedings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.