Case 2402275/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Burney v Bucadi RE Limited (dissolved) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402275/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Burney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the matter at Manchester on 22 October 2024 before Employment Judge Phil Allen. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended or was represented.
The judgment states that the claim is dismissed on non-attendance under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules of procedure. No written reasons or claim-specific findings are included in the short judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The short judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance and gives no claim-specific reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The short judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance and gives no claim-specific reasons. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance and gives no claim-specific reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance and gives no claim-specific reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The short judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance and gives no claim-specific reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules of procedure
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.