Case 2402428/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A MacKie v BFS Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402428/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A MacKie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Holmes recorded that the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing on 27 August 2020, and that the claims had not been actively pursued. The judgment states that in orders sent to the parties on 1 October 2020 the Tribunal warned the claimant that, if he did not provide a satisfactory explanation for his non-attendance by 18 September 2020, the claims could be struck out under rule 47 or rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant made no representations and provided no explanation for the non-attendance. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims pursuant to rules 47 and 37. The judgment also records that the hearing fixed for 27-29 September 2021 would not take place. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was struck out with the other claims because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing on 27 August 2020 and made no representations after warning; the judgment records no merits determination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out with the other claims because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing on 27 August 2020 and made no representations after warning; the judgment records no merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rules 47 and 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.