Case 2303100/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Langowski v Sabio Recruitment Ltd (Company No 14556744) — 2024

Case reference: 2303100/2023
Decision date: 3 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Peer Representation

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Langowski

Respondent

Sabio Recruitment Ltd (Company No 14556744)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard on 3 January 2024 at London South (CVP) before Employment Judge Peer. Neither party appeared. The judgment records that the respondent had failed to attend or defend the claim issued on 2 July 2023, had not made a compliant application for an extension of time, and that any extension was refused. The tribunal also stated that, because of the respondent's non-attendance, a determination could not properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2013.

The claimant also failed to attend. After considering the information available and making such enquiries as were practicable about the reason for the claimant's absence under rule 47, the tribunal exercised its discretion and dismissed the claim. No remedy was awarded and the judgment contains no merits findings on the substantive employment complaint.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim heads. It records that the claimant failed to attend the hearing and that, after considering available information and making practicable enquiries, the tribunal exercised discretion to dismiss the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2013.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.