Case 1803165/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Palmer v Nestlings Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803165/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Palmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in private by telephone at Leeds on 7 August 2023 before Employment Judge T Knowles. The claimant, Mr R Palmer, did not attend. The respondent, Nestlings Care Limited, was represented by Ms A Jackson, Trainee Solicitor.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims against the respondent were dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because of non-attendance. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note on post-hearing requests. The decision does not include merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the judgment does not contain merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the judgment does not contain merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the judgment does not contain merits findings. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the judgment does not contain merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the judgment does not contain merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.