Case 1406177/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lavender v Betterclean Services Franchising Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406177/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lavender
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Lavender did not attend the hearing, did not provide any written submissions, and had not filed a witness statement despite case management orders. The hearing proceeded by BT telephone conference on 13 August 2021 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke, with the respondent represented by Mr D van Kuyk, a director of Betterclean Services Franchising Limited.
The tribunal invited the claimant to join the hearing at 10.00 am and then telephoned him directly. No answer was received, although the voicemail confirmed that the phone was his. The tribunal left a message saying the hearing would be adjourned for 30 minutes and would proceed if he did not attend. He still did not attend at 10.30 am.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims. The judgment records that the claims dismissed were breach of contract in respect of notice and failure to provide terms and conditions of employment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim dismissed by the tribunal. The judgment states the claimant's breach of contract claims in respect of notice and failure to provide terms and conditions of employment were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim dismissed by the tribunal. The judgment states the claimant's breach of contract claims in respect of notice and failure to provide terms and conditions of employment were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Tribunal 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.