Case 2400644/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Mobey v Speedier Scaffolding Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400644/2021
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newstead Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Mobey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Anthony Mobey, did not attend the hearing listed for 21 May 2021. The Employment Judge recorded that he had failed and/or refused to comply with the orders in the Notice of Claim dated 28 January 2021 and had not provided a schedule of loss, any documents, or a witness statement.
Because of that non-compliance and non-attendance, the tribunal dismissed all claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record was sent to the parties on 27 May 2021. No remedy or liability findings were made on the substance of the claim(s).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment does not identify the individual claims in the body, but the case listing categories were Redundancy and Unfair Dismissal and the case context supplied the corresponding claim-type hint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the individual claims in the body, but the case listing categories were Redundancy and Unfair Dismissal and the case context supplied the corresponding claim-type hint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.