Case 1808960/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Sellers v Pollington Transport Co Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808960/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Sellers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Sellers, and the respondent, Pollington Transport Co Ltd, were listed for a hearing at Leeds by CVP on 8 May 2024 before Employment Judge Maidment. Neither party attended, and no appearance was entered for the respondent.
The judgment states that, because of the claimant's failure to attend the hearing, and pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the claimant's claims were dismissed. The extracted judgment does not set out separate findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment does not record any compensatory, basic, or other monetary award, and it does not identify any part of the claim as succeeding on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify a separate reason for each claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed because he failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not identify a separate reason for each claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed because he failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify a separate reason for each claim; it records that the claimant's claims were dismissed because he failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.