Case 1807289/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance or v M&M Yorkshire Stone Products Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807289/2019
- Decision date
- 28 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance or
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Byrne, did not attend and was not represented at the hearing on 28 April 2020. Employment Judge Brain recorded that the Tribunal was satisfied the claimant had received notice of that day's hearing and that it had made such enquiries as were practicable as to the reason for his absence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal ordered that the claimant's claim stand dismissed. The judgment states in the alternative that the claim was struck out under Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued, including non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of 10 February 2020.
The Tribunal also recorded that the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably. No merits finding and no monetary remedy were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive cause of action in the extract provided. It records that the claimant failed to attend or be represented, and that the claim was dismissed; in the alternative, it was struck out for non-pursuit and failure to comply with the Tribunal's order of 10 February 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.