Case 1307602/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Lacatus v UKE Multidrop Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1307602/2024
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Knowles on 6 October 2025. The issues listed for determination included whether the claim needed amendment, whether any part should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success, and whether any part should be made subject to a deposit order, but the claimant and his representative did not attend.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been on notice of the hearing: the date had been fixed at the case management preliminary hearing on 3 June 2025, the Notice of Hearing was emailed on 4 June 2025, and the hearing bundle sent on 15 September 2025 included the Notice of Hearing. The tribunal clerk made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the claimant and his representative, and no explanation or postponement application was received.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the overriding objective in Rule 3, the tribunal concluded that there was no good explanation for the non-attendance and that dismissal was proportionate. The claimant’s claim was therefore dismissed; the reasons do not include any substantive determination of the underlying unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 after the claimant and his representative failed to attend the hearing; no merits decision was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.