Case 2201130/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Parmenter v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201130/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Parmenter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the first day of the final hearing and gave no notice or explanation for his absence. The tribunal attempted to contact him by telephone and email and waited until after 2pm before resuming the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claims under rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The respondent indicated an intention to apply for costs, but was not in a position to make the application or serve a schedule of costs that day.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claims under rule 47 following the claimant's non-attendance, but does not separately identify each pleaded claim in the body of the judgment. This claim type is taken from the listing categories and Layer 1 hint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claims under rule 47 following the claimant's non-attendance, but does not separately identify each pleaded claim in the body of the judgment. This claim type is taken from the listing categories and Layer 1 hint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claims under rule 47 following the claimant's non-attendance, but does not separately identify each pleaded claim in the body of the judgment. This claim type is taken from the listing categories and Layer 1 hint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Schedule 1 of 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.