Case 2216408/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gosztonyi v Masterfix GB Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216408/2023
- Decision date
- 2 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gosztonyi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Gosztonyi, did not attend the hearing on 18 March 2024. The tribunal tried to contact him by telephone, but he did not respond. It noted that he had failed to attend a previous hearing and had been told the procedure for requesting a postponement if he was unable to attend. No postponement application had been received.
The tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It also considered the merits of the pleaded claims and recorded that the primary claim was unfair dismissal, but the claimant did not have sufficient service for that claim, so it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant also referred to a deduction from wages, but he did not particularise the deduction. Having considered the pleadings, payslips and contractual information, the tribunal found that claim likewise had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following the claimant's non-attendance at the hearing under Rule 47. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not have sufficient service for an unfair dismissal claim, so it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant referred to a deduction from wages but did not particularise it. After considering the pleadings, payslips and contractual information, the tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.