Case 1600309/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Cumner v Pompeo Limited t/a Ty Newydd Country Hotel — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600309/2022
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Cumner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Cumner’s claim against Pompeo Limited t/a Ty Newydd Country Hotel was listed for a video hearing at Cardiff on 28 June 2022 before Judge MM Thomas. The claimant’s former representative, Miss Helen Morgan, emailed the tribunal on 23 June 2022 to say she no longer represented him. The tribunal records that after that point communications were sent to the email address the claimant had provided.
By directions dated 23 April 2022, the claimant had been told the hearing would take place on 28 June 2022 and that he would be sent a link for the video hearing. The link was sent on 23 June 2022. The judge was satisfied that the claimant had notice of the hearing and had chosen not to attend or participate. No one attended for the respondent either, but the judgment records that the respondent was also aware of the hearing and had decided not to send a representative.
The tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not attend and had given no explanation for his absence. In reaching that decision, the judge noted Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment contains no merits findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action. It records dismissal of the claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 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.