Case 2411294/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Smith v John Abbott (Flooring Contractors) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411294/2021
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 10 February 2022 before Judge Cowx sitting alone. The claimant, Mr G Smith, did not attend the hearing. The respondent was represented by Mr Simon Abbott.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, arrears of pay and holiday pay under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The stated reason was that the claimant failed to attend without reasonable excuse and thereby did not actively pursue his claim.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because the claimant failed to attend without reasonable excuse and did not actively pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Described in the judgment as arrears of pay; struck out with the other claims under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out with the unfair dismissal and arrears of pay claims under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.