Case 2306038/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend v Mr A Celi and Mr E Robotham — 2021
- Case reference
- 2306038/2020
- Decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a hearing on 20 November 2021 before Judge M Aspinall sitting as an Employment Judge. The Claimant did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal recorded that the solicitor on the record had told the Tribunal they no longer acted for the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend and had not complied with case management directions; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend and had not complied with case management directions; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend and had not complied with case management directions; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend and had not complied with case management directions; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend and had not complied with case management directions; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.