Case 2308380/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tyler v Alan Woodward Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308380/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tyler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed before Employment Judge Fredericks at London South on 1 February 2022. The claimant, Mr R Tyler, did not attend. The respondent, Alan Woodward Ltd, was represented by Ms T Hand of Counsel.
The tribunal amended the respondent’s name to reflect the claimant’s employer, Alan Woodward Ltd. It then dismissed the claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant did not attend.
The tribunal recorded that it had taken steps to find the reason for the non-attendance. The clerk telephoned the claimant, who said he would not be attending to put his case and that he did not wish to continue with his claims. The judgment therefore contains no determination of the substantive merits of the underlying claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon non-attendance of the claimant pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal recorded that the claimant told the clerk he would not attend to put his case and did not wish to continue with his claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.