Case 2301272/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Thorpe v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301272/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Thorpe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the respondent's name was amended to Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd. The claimant did not attend. The Tribunal continued in his absence under Rule 47 after being satisfied that he had notice of the hearing, had not complied with orders on disclosure and witness evidence, had not contacted the respondent in preparation, gave no warning or reason for non-attendance, and could not be contacted during the hearing.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and therefore had no standing to bring that claim. The notice pay claim was also dismissed because it was out of time and the Tribunal found no evidence justifying an extension under s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that no complaints under the claim number survived.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and had no standing to advance an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim for notice pay. It was dismissed because it was brought outside the primary time limit and the Tribunal found no evidence justifying an extension of time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.