Case 2302578/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Leeman v Kentish Plumbers — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302578/2024
- Decision date
- 18 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Leeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing after emailing to say he had to go to work and requesting an adjournment. The tribunal considered the reason for non-attendance and dismissed the claims under rule 47, deciding that an adjournment and re-listing would be disproportionate.
The tribunal found it overwhelmingly likely that the respondent's application for strike out or dismissal would have succeeded if the claimant had attended. It noted that the claimant had not responded to the application, there was nothing to suggest he had two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim or relied on an automatic unfair reason, and there was no explanation for a delay of two years in presenting claims that were said to be out of time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. The tribunal also noted the claimant did not have two years' service and did not rely on an automatic unfair reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. The tribunal noted that all claims were over two years out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- rule 27
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.