Case 2410874/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Vernon v Chaseman Global Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410874/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Vernon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 January 2024, the tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the response should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, on the basis that the respondent had not provided any defence to the claimant's claims. The respondent did not make any representations in response to that letter.
The tribunal therefore struck out the response. The judgment does not decide the merits of the claimant's underlying claims, identified in the case listing as unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages, and it records no substantive liability findings or monetary award.
The tribunal stated that the respondent remains entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, but may only participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Barker on 2 February 2024 and sent to the parties on 13 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response for no reasonable prospect of success and does not determine the merits of this claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response for no reasonable prospect of success and does not determine the merits of this claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.