Case 2304818/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Miles v Rapid Care Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304818/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Miles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal listed Mr T Miles's claims of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment for final hearing on 8 June 2021 at London South Employment Tribunal. Employment Judge Abbott sat alone. Neither party attended the CVP hearing, and the tribunal clerk made repeated attempts to contact them by telephone. The judge noted that the respondent had previously written on 18 February 2021 saying it had not heard from the claimant since completing its ET3 and that the claimant had not complied with directions to provide a schedule of loss or the basis for his compensation claim.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal considered the available information, the unanswered enquiries, and the absence of any explanation from the claimant for not attending or participating in the preparation of the hearing. The judge recorded that the hearing could not proceed in the absence of both parties.
Taking account of the overriding objective, the tribunal decided that the appropriate course was to dismiss the claim. The judgment therefore dismissed both the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment claim. No substantive findings were made on the merits of either claim, and no monetary award was made.
The judgment also states that if the claimant seeks reconsideration, he must apply within 14 days of the judgment being sent to him and must copy the respondent with any application, together with an explanation for his failure to attend, be represented at, or prepare for the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal listed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal for final hearing, but neither party attended. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013 because there was no attendance, no explanation from the claimant, and no basis to proceed in his absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal also listed the claimant's redundancy payment claim for final hearing. It was dismissed with the rest of the claim under rule 47 after both parties failed to attend and the tribunal decided dismissal was the appropriate course. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.