Case 1601554/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Baker v Colas Rail Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601554/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Reed Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff on 11 December 2019 before Employment Judge D Reed. The claimant, Mr M Baker, did not attend. The respondent, Colas Rail Limited, was represented by Mr J Medhurst, solicitor.
The written judgment states that, upon the claimant's non-attendance, the claim was dismissed. The record does not set out any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims and does not divide the dismissal between individual heads of claim.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided unless requested under Rule 62(3). No monetary remedy was awarded in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment states that, upon the claimant's non-attendance, 'the claim is dismissed'. It does not separate outcomes between pleaded heads of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment states that, upon the claimant's non-attendance, 'the claim is dismissed'. It does not separate outcomes between pleaded heads of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.