Case 2302206/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Campbell v Hiver Beers Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302206/2025
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a final hearing on 29 August 2025 at Croydon by video before Employment Judge Tueje. The claimant emailed the tribunal on 28 August 2025 asking for the hearing to be postponed and relisted for 5 September 2025, but gave no reason for the request. The respondent opposed postponement the same day.
The tribunal applied rule 32(3)(a). It noted that the request was made one day before the hearing, that the respondent did not agree, and that the rule’s criteria for postponing a hearing less than 7 days before the listed date were therefore not met. The tribunal also said that, because no reason had been given, it could not assess whether postponement would have been in the interests of justice.
Because the hearing was not postponed, it proceeded as listed. The respondent attended through Ms Rhodes, but the claimant did not attend and did not reply to the tribunal’s email and telephone enquiries about whether he would join the hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the pleaded cause of action in the extracted text; the claim type is classified from the case listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 32(3)(a)
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.