Case 1801935/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Welsh (2) Mr M Tolson v KML Flooring Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801935/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Welsh (2) Mr M Tolson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the linked claims of Mr A Welsh and Mr M Tolson against KML Flooring Ltd by video on 26 September 2024 before Employment Judge Armstrong. The claimants did not attend. The first claimant did not respond to a telephone call from the Tribunal, and the second claimant had not provided a telephone number. The second claimant emailed the Tribunal the day before the hearing and was given confirmation of the hearing time and video link, which had already been sent previously.
The hearing commenced at 10.10am and concluded at 10.25am. Neither claimant attempted to join the hearing or contacted the Tribunal by telephone or email. The judgment records that neither claimant had provided any evidence in support of the claims, contrary to the orders made when the claims were accepted.
The tribunal also recorded that neither claimant had clarified the grounds of claim as directed by REJ Robertson on 21 August 2024. In those circumstances, the tribunal dismissed the claims pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that both linked claims in case nos. 1801935/2024 and 1801936/2024 were dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the ET Rules 2013 after the claimants did not attend the hearing, did not join by video or contact the Tribunal, and had not provided evidence or clarified the grounds of claim as directed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 ET Rules 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.