Case 2303837/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Chapman v F D Copeland & Sons Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303837/2024
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Chapman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed to consider whether to strike out the claim because it had not been actively pursued or because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal directions. The claimant did not attend the hearing, and the Tribunal clerk tried to contact him by phone and email after the hearing was put back by 30 minutes.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant had also failed to attend a case management hearing on 6 March 2025 and had not responded by 20 March 2025 as directed. Although he later wrote on 2 July 2025 about being unable to access email and then sent an email setting out alleged protected disclosures, nothing further had been heard from him.
Employment Judge Fowell concluded that the claim appeared to have been abandoned, or at least not actively pursued, and that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim at that stage under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismissed the claim in its entirety under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend. It did not address this claim on its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismissed the claim in its entirety under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend. It did not address this claim on its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismissed the claim in its entirety under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend. It did not address this claim on its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal 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.