Case 2411235/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Bailey v Prosperous Life Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411235/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for hearing at Manchester on 24 January 2020 before Employment Judge Dunlop. The claimant, Mr B Bailey, and the respondent, Prosperous Life Ltd, were both recorded as not in attendance. The respondent had not presented a response.
By 10.15am the claimant had not arrived and no message or request for postponement had been received. The tribunal telephoned the mobile number given on the claim form, but there was no answer and no answering service. By 11.00am the claimant was still absent and there had been no recent correspondence on the file.
The judge referred to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, which permits a claim to be dismissed where a party has not attended the hearing. Because no reason for the claimant's non-attendance had been given and there was nothing to suggest that the claim was being actively pursued, the tribunal dismissed the claim. The judgment does not contain any findings on the underlying employment claims or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and gave no reason for non-attendance. No merits findings were made. | 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.