Case 1802874/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hunter v Spray-Glaze Ltd HELD: by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802874/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for hearing on 1 February 2022 and converted to a CVP hearing the same day. The claimant, Mr K Hunter, did not attend and had no representation. The respondent also did not attend and had not filed a response.
The tribunal clerk telephoned the claimant at 10.00am, but the call first rang engaged and then failed. An email was sent to the claimant and the tribunal allowed a quarter of an hour for a reply. When no reply was received, the clerk tried to telephone the claimant again at 10.30am without success.
In those circumstances, Employment Judge Shulman dismissed the claimant's claims of disability discrimination, no notice pay, unauthorised deduction of wages and 'other payments' on the basis of non-appearance. The judgment does not contain substantive findings on the merits of any claim and records no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on non-appearance of the claimant; no substantive findings on the merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | This entry reflects the claim listed as 'no notice pay'; the judgment did not give a separate legal characterization for it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on non-appearance of the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment referred to 'other payments' but gave no further particulars. | 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.