Case 2302649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302649/2019
- Decision date
- 20 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The tribunal proceeded in his absence because the hearing had been listed at an earlier preliminary hearing he attended and the record had been sent to the parties.
The tribunal struck out the automatic unfair dismissal claim. It found there was no contemporaneous evidence of the alleged protected disclosure and no evidence that those involved in the dismissal decision knew of it if it was made. The related detriment claim was also struck out because it appeared to refer to the dismissal rather than a separate detriment, and because the claimant was unlikely to prove he had made a protected disclosure.
The breach of contract claim was struck out because the contract stated that the disciplinary procedure did not form part of the contract. The wrongful dismissal claim was allowed to proceed because the respondent would have to prove conduct justifying dismissal without notice, and the tribunal was not in a position at the preliminary stage to decide whether condensed CCTV footage adequately showed the alleged misconduct.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on alleged protected disclosure was struck out under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim was struck out under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal found it appeared to refer to the dismissal rather than a distinct detriment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim based on alleged failure to follow the disciplinary procedure was struck out because the contract stated that the disciplinary procedure did not form part of the contract. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal refused to strike out the wrongful dismissal claim or make a deposit order; it was allowed to proceed to a full hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.