Case 2401524/2024 · Employment Tribunal
did not attend For the v Mr D Walton (solicitor). — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401524/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was listed for a CVP hearing at Liverpool on 3 February 2025 before Employment Judge Johnson. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that he had not replied to the strike-out warning sent on 19 December 2024, had not objected by the ordered deadline of 30 December 2024, had not responded to later correspondence about whether he intended to withdraw, had not provided medical evidence, and had failed to comply with case management orders. The claimant's claim was therefore struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.
On the respondent's employer's contract counterclaim, the tribunal proceeded under Rules 26 and 22 on the papers and the respondent's submissions. It accepted the claimed sums for unreturned IT equipment, including £644.99 for an HP ProBook 450 G9 laptop, and for training costs of £448.00, £970.00 and £201.50, less £439.83 deducted on termination. The operative judgment ordered the claimant to pay £1,844.66 in full and final settlement of the counterclaim. The written reasons contain an internal inconsistency in the arithmetic for the training subtotal and grand total, but the bottom-line figure in the order is £1,844.66.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's proceedings were struck out as a whole under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d); the written reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's proceedings were struck out as a whole under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d); the written reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's employer's contract counterclaim. The reasons identify £644.99 for unreturned IT equipment and £1,179.67 net training costs, but the arithmetic in the written reasons is internally inconsistent; the operative award extracted is the ordered sum of £1,844.66 in full and final settlement. | Upheld | — | £1,845 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,845
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 38(1)(c) & (d)
- Rule 26(2)
- Rule 22(2)
- Rule 75
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.