Case 2303177/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Isaacs v Optimistic Fox Ltd in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303177/2022
- Decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Claimant
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr E Isaacs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 14 June 2023 at London South Employment Tribunal, neither party attended. The tribunal recorded that it attempted to contact the Claimant by telephone and left a voicemail, but received no response. It also noted that, by order dated 28 November 2022, the Claimant had been asked to quantify his claim and provide supporting documents and evidence, and had not responded.
The tribunal was satisfied that practicable enquiry had been made into the reasons for the Claimant’s absence, including notice of the hearing sent on 28 November 2022 and an email with the hearing link sent on 13 June 2023. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 and having regard to the overriding objective in Rule 2, the tribunal concluded that, without any representation or evidence, it could not determine the claim in the Claimant’s absence.
The judgment states that all of the Claimant’s claims were struck out under Rule 47. The reasons section adds that the appropriate course was to dismiss the claim because there was insufficient evidence to determine it in the Claimant’s absence.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing; the judgment itself only states that all of the Claimant’s claims were struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing; the judgment itself only states that all of the Claimant’s claims were struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing; the judgment itself only states that all of the Claimant’s claims were struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing; the judgment itself only states that all of the Claimant’s claims were struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.