Case 1307426/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No Appearance For v Written representations — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307426/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Appearance For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Dunn, did not attend the hearing at Stoke-on-Trent on 6 January 2020. The tribunal noted that it had the tribunal file and written representations from the respondent, ISS Facility Services Limited, before it when considering the case.
On that basis, Employment Judge Gaskell applied Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and dismissed the claimant's claim in its entirety. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The judgment does not set out separate findings on the listed breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages claims, and it records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim in its entirety under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not separately analyse this listed claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim in its entirety under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not separately analyse this listed claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals 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.