Case 1404151/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Bowden v Brookridge Timber Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404151/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Bowden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr T Bowden, did not attend or have representation at the telephone case management preliminary hearing on 6 April 2021. Brookridge Timber Ltd attended through its directors, Mr R Brook and Mr K Kingdon. The tribunal noted that the Bristol office had contacted the claimant's mother, who was acting as his representative, and she declined to attend and said the claimant was having second thoughts about pursuing the claim.
No substantive determination of the unfair dismissal claim was made. The judgment states that automatic unfair dismissal was the only claim before the tribunal. Instead, Employment Judge Matthews ordered the claimant to write to the Bristol office confirming whether he wished to pursue the claim. The order provided that if the claimant did not wish to pursue the claim, or if no communication was received on or before 30 April 2021, the claim would stand dismissed without further order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that automatic unfair dismissal was the only claim before it. It did not determine the merits at this hearing; instead, it ordered the claimant to confirm by 30 April 2021 whether he wished to pursue the claim, and stated that if no communication was received by then the claim would stand dismissed without further order. | Other | — | — |
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.