Case 1804511/2022 · Employment Tribunal
George Hale v Stuart Wildman (sole trader) trading as Aqualympic — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804511/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Elliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
George Hale
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 24 February 2023, the claimant did not attend and had not applied to postpone the hearing or provided an explanation for his absence. The tribunal noted that there had been no correspondence from the claimant since October 2022, apart from a December 2022 email to ACAS in which he indicated that he wished to continue with the claim. Attempts to reach him by telephone were unsuccessful. The respondent attended the hearing and asked for the claim to be dismissed.
Taking account of those matters and the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's claim, case number 1804511/2022, had not been actively pursued and dismissed it with effect from 24 February 2023 under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The respondent's separate claim, case number 1806582/2022, was not dismissed and was said to continue unless and until withdrawn; the respondent indicated that he intended to write in to withdraw it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed claim number 1804511/2022 under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing. The extracted text does not identify the underlying substantive claim label. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.