Case 2415776/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fountain v Thyme Poulton Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415776/2020
- Decision date
- 28 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fountain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was dismissed after the claimant did not attend the hearing on 17 March 2022. Employment Judge Malik recorded that notice of the hearing had been sent to the correct contact details supplied by the claimant, and that the tribunal had taken steps to try to find out why he was absent.
The tribunal noted that the claimant’s supplied contact number did not ring through, there was no other contact number, and the clerk emailed him to say the tribunal would be available all morning and beyond the listed time if he was able to join later on the Cloud Video Platform. The tribunal waited until 12.20pm, but the claimant still did not attend.
No reason for the non-attendance had been provided in advance, and no witness statement or bundle of documents had been supplied by the claimant before the hearing. The judgment therefore records dismissal of the claim upon non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying cause of action in the extracted text. The claim was dismissed upon non-attendance of the claimant under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Schedule 1 of The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.