Case 2303223/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Dodd v Mitie Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303223/2021
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Dodd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at London South by video on 3 May 2023 before Employment Judge Evans sitting alone. The Claimant did not attend and was not represented; the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure because of the Claimant's non-attendance at the hearing. No remedy was awarded, and the written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 following non-attendance; the claim type is taken from the listing/category context rather than particulars set out in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 following non-attendance; the claim type is taken from the listing/category context rather than particulars set out in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 following non-attendance; the claim type is taken from the listing/category context rather than particulars set out in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure
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.