Case 2201887/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lazar v Get Set Hire — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201887/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lazar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a single claim of unfair dismissal. The hearing was listed for 6 October 2022, but the claimant did not attend. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been sent a Notice of Hearing, directions requiring him to exchange documents and witness statements, and joining instructions for the online hearing the day before the hearing.
The Tribunal recorded that there had been no communication from the claimant after the claim form was submitted, that he had not complied with the directions, and that the Respondent had tried to contact him without reply. After the claimant failed to join by the appointed time, the clerk telephoned and emailed him, but no contact was made and no reason for his absence was provided.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and taking into account the available information, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had notice of the hearing and appeared no longer to be pursuing the claim. It also took into account the prejudice and cost to the Respondent if the matter were delayed further. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing and had not complied with Tribunal directions. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- 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.