Case 1804244/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Creighton v Spie Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804244/2021
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles
- Panel members
- Mr W Roberts, Mr DW Eales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Creighton
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds by video on 21 March 2022 before Employment Judge Knowles sitting with Mr W Roberts and Mr DW Eales. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr Zovidavi, Counsel.
The Employment Tribunal’s unanimous judgment was that the claimant’s claims were dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis of non-attendance. The written record does not provide substantive reasons on the merits of the underlying allegation, and it records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing. Written reasons were not to be provided unless requested in accordance with the note to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The unanimous judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed under Rule 47 (non-attendance). The written record does not set out separate substantive findings on the race discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 (non-attendance)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.