Case 1805452/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Thewlis v Iceland Foods Limited AT A HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805452/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Thewlis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a partially remote hearing on 2 February 2021 before Employment Judge Lancaster. The claimant, Mr M Thewlis, did not attend. The respondent, Iceland Foods Limited, was represented by Ms K Skeaping, solicitor. The tribunal recorded that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and the issues could be determined remotely.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had already failed to comply with directions and had not responded to recent communications from the respondent or the tribunal. In those circumstances, and because he failed to attend the hearing, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying unfair dismissal complaint. It also records that any application for costs, if appropriate, was adjourned to be put in writing, with the claimant to be given an opportunity to respond.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 after the claimant had already failed to comply with directions, had not responded to recent communications from the respondent or the tribunal, and did not attend the hearing. | 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.