Case 1400366/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and were not represented For the v Mr S Hoyle (Consultant) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400366/2018
- Decision date
- 30 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and were not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case involved four claimants, Mr S Yusuf, Mr M Awudu, Mr J T Omoaregba and Mr A T Amugwula, against Tutelar Security Limited. The hearing took place on 30 August 2019 before Employment Judge Emerton sitting alone in Southampton. The claimants did not attend and were not represented; the respondent was represented by Mr S Hoyle.
Upon the claimants failing to attend or to be represented at the hearing, and after first considering the information available, the tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not contain any findings on the underlying merits of the claims.
The claims identified from the case listing were breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment records only the procedural dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimants failed to attend or be represented; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimants failed to attend or be represented; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimants failed to attend or be represented; no merits findings were made. | 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.