Case 2301430/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Field v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy R1 Ashyfield Limited (In Liquidation) R2 — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301430/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Field
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South (Croydon) via CVP on 26 January 2023 before Employment Judge Wright. The claimant did not attend. The first respondent also did not attend. The judgment records that the claimant had applied on 16 January 2023 for a postponement to allow more time to prepare, and that the first respondent agreed with that application for the reasons the claimant had given. The application was refused. The tribunal also recorded that the first respondent later said it had informed the claimant on 5 January 2023 that his representative was involved in another hearing on 27 January 2023 at the London East Tribunal.
The tribunal referred to Rules 42 and 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. It noted that no written representations had been provided. It considered the available information about the claimant’s absence and found there was no reasonable explanation for non-attendance at a video hearing listed for two hours.
In view of those circumstances and the claimant’s non-attendance, the tribunal dismissed the claim. No merits findings or monetary award are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying heads of claim, but states that 'the claimant’s claim is dismissed' after the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 42 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.