Case 2401261/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Neath v NSL Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401261/2021
- Decision date
- 9 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Neath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim of unfair dismissal. The respondent contended in its ET3 that the claim had been brought out of time because the claimant had given the wrong employment end date, and that issue had been listed for consideration at an open preliminary hearing.
The claimant did not attend the hearing on 8 November 2021, despite having been sent notice of hearing several months earlier. Tribunal staff attempted to contact him by telephone and email on the morning of the hearing, including warning that the tribunal was minded to strike out or dismiss the case if no contact was received, but there was no response.
The judge considered Rule 47 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal Rules, noted that there was no information explaining the claimant’s absence, and concluded that dismissal of the claim was the just course in the circumstances. A possible costs application raised by the respondent was not determined at that hearing and was left for separate case management directions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the open preliminary hearing and made no contact with the tribunal. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | 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.