Case 2205873/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not appear and was not represented For v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205873/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not appear and was not represented For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a breach of contract claim arising from employment that started and ended on 8 September 2020. The tribunal wrote to him on 19 November 2020 asking what breach of contract he relied on, but he did not provide particulars by the time sought, and his later emails referred to a fair processing notice, data storage, and demands for payment of £750,000 and then £600,000.
The final hearing took place on 4 February 2021 before Employment Judge Brown sitting alone. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that he had been given joining instructions for the Cloud Video Platform hearing, including instructions for joining by Skype if preferred, and that he had been warned the hearing would proceed in his absence. The tribunal decided it was fair to proceed without him.
Having considered the pleaded claim and the correspondence sent by the claimant, the tribunal found that it could discern no breach of contract claim, or any other legal claim within the tribunal's jurisdiction, in anything he had written. The claim therefore failed and was dismissed. Judgment and reasons were sent to the parties on 16 February 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim form referred to an alleged failure to provide a fair processing notice and to inconsistencies about data storage, but the tribunal could not discern any breach of contract claim, or any other claim within its jurisdiction, from the pleadings or later correspondence. | 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.