Case 2405491/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Joynes v Bluestones Supply Chain Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405491/2022
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Joynes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing had taken place on 10 May 2023, when it was decided there would be a further hearing on 22 August 2023 to consider whether the claimant’s claim should be struck out. Notice of the hearing, the CVP guidance, and the written record of the preliminary hearing with a case management order were sent to the parties on 17 May 2023. That order required the claimant to respond to the respondents’ strike-out applications by 5 July 2023.
On 17 July 2023 the claimant emailed the tribunal saying that his wife had suffered a serious injury, which was “gradually improving”, and asked for “the date extended” because he was “quite busy with the fall out”. The tribunal replied on 11 August 2023 that the hearing would proceed on 22 August 2023 and that any request to postpone would need to be specific and supported by medical evidence. Bluestones Supply Chain Ltd also emailed the claimant on 11 August 2023 to point out that he could request a postponement, and Magnit Global GRI Ltd made more than one unsuccessful attempt to contact him.
The tribunal reminded the parties on 21 August 2023 that the hearing would proceed the next day and sent the link to the remote hearing that afternoon. The tribunal had no record of any communication from the claimant after 17 July 2023. When the hearing began at 10.14am on 22 August 2023, the claimant had not connected. The clerk telephoned the mobile number on the claim form at 10.20am and there was no answer, and the claimant still had not connected by 10.30am.
Employment Judge Horne applied rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the overriding objective in rule 2. The judge was satisfied that all practicable enquiries had been made about the claimant’s absence, that the claimant’s wife’s injury did not explain his non-attendance at the hearing, that the claimant must have known the hearing could bring his claim to an end, and that dismissing the claim was proportionate. The judgment therefore dismissed the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend or connect to the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective in rule 2
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.