Case 2400838/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Horne v Faulkner and Mason — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400838/2022
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Horne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Horne brought a claim for unpaid wages against Faulkner and Mason. The respondent’s response said the correct legal identity of the employer was JSM Recruitment Ltd t/a Faulkner and Mason, and that the claimant had done a short assignment but no wages were paid because he was said to be unable to provide the documentation needed to evidence his right to work in the UK.
The case was listed for a preliminary case management hearing because neither party was represented and the tribunal considered the legal issues around claims based on allegedly illegal contracts to be complicated. In preparing for the hearing, the Employment Judge noted that the claimant appeared to have recently obtained a Rule 21 judgment against “Faulkner and Mason” in Bristol, and inferred that the sums there might be the same sums sought in this case, although that could not be confirmed.
Neither party attended the hearing. The tribunal clerk contacted Mr Horne, who said he had been paid his money and did not propose to attend; he did not email the tribunal to confirm that position or to withdraw the claim. In those circumstances, Employment Judge Dunlop dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2019 because the claimant had not attended the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2019 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; no merits determination was made. | 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.