Case 2303166/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K March v Sussex Refreshment Limited t/a The Sussex Exchange Heard at London South (by video) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303166/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K March
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the hearing on 16 September 2024. The tribunal clerk telephoned the claimant, who said the login details had been sent to the correct email address but that he had not seen them. The call then ended and further attempts to reach him went to voicemail, with no callback or further information provided.
The tribunal had already written to the claimant on 6 March 2024 asking whether he agreed that The Sussex Exchange Ltd was the correct employer, and later wrote to both parties on 7 August 2024 asking whether the hearing was still required and whether they were ready to proceed. No reply was received from either side, apart from a letter from the respondent's representative coming off the record. Applying Rule 47, the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not appear to be pursuing the claim and dismissed it. The reasons also noted that The Sussex Exchange Ltd was in creditors voluntary liquidation from 17 July 2023 and that any further attempt to recover money owed would likely need to be made through the liquidators and the Redundancy Payments Service.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment dismissed the claim for non-attendance and apparent non-pursuit without reaching the merits. The reasons do not separately adjudicate this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismissed the claim for non-attendance and apparent non-pursuit without reaching the merits. The reasons do not separately adjudicate this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.