Case 2303007/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Lockhart v Blue Jays Transport Group Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303007/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Lockhart
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Croydon via CVP on 17 October 2024 before Employment Judge Leith. Neither party attended or was represented. The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not attend the listed hearing.
The judgment states that the claim was dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules because of the claimant's failure to attend. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
The written record says that reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 October 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing records breach of contract. The tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the listed hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing records unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the listed hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing records working time. The tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the listed hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.