Case 2300306/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Edewor v Charlie Chaplin Adventure Playground — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300306/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Edewor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Truscott QC at Croydon on 4 November 2019. The claimant, Mr O Edewor, did not appear and was not represented. The respondent, Charlie Chaplin Adventure Playground, was represented by Mrs A Beattie, litigation manager.
The reasons record that the hearing had been fixed on 25 June 2019 when the claimant was present, and that the date and further information sought from him were given then. Notice of hearing and consequential orders were sent to the claimant on 20 July 2019. The claimant later emailed on 30 July and 12 August 2019 to address comments about lack of detail and to provide a new email address.
The respondent sent its draft agenda for the hearing to the claimant's new email address and referred to the hearing date. The claimant continued in the respondent's employment, but he did not attend the hearing and no reason for non-attendance was given.
The respondent asked for the proceedings to be dismissed. The tribunal acceded to that request and dismissed the claim. The reasons do not record any substantive determination of the underlying complaints or any award of compensation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the proceedings at an open preliminary hearing on 4 November 2019 after the claimant did not attend and gave no reason for non-attendance. The reasons recorded no substantive merits findings on any pleaded issue. | 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.