Case 2304976/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ryan Gillam v Channel Glazing Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304976/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ryan Gillam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRyan Gillam did not attend the Full Merits Hearing in Croydon on 19 July 2024. The respondent, Channel Glazing Ltd, was represented by Donna Edmonds, described as a lay representative and company secretary. The judgment records that Employment Judge Liz Ord heard the matter in the claimant's absence.
The tribunal's decision is brief and disposes of the case without any merits findings. It states that, because the claimant failed to attend the Full Merits Hearing, all claims were dismissed. No separate analysis, factual findings, or legal reasoning on the substantive claims appears in the judgment text provided.
The judgment does not identify any monetary award or remedy, and no part of the claim was upheld. The extracted text does not include any lay members or any cited legal test.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that upon the Claimant failing to attend the Full Merits Hearing, all claims were dismissed. It does not set out separate findings on this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that upon the Claimant failing to attend the Full Merits Hearing, all claims were dismissed. It does not set out separate findings on this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.