Case 2500189/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Sarsby v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500189/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle Civil Family Courts and Tribunal Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Sarsby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe proceedings were listed for a two-day in-person hearing on 3 and 4 February 2022. The Claimant did not attend at the required time, and the Tribunal attempted to contact him by leaving two voice messages and sending emails to both email addresses he had used.
The Tribunal reviewed the file and correspondence history, including material indicating that the Claimant had used both the Hotmail and Outlook addresses. By 11.30am there had been no contact from the Claimant.
The Respondent invited the Tribunal to dismiss the proceedings under rule 47. The Tribunal considered the available information about the Claimant's absence, the correspondence history, the Respondent's attendance for a second hearing, and the complaints and response, and exercised its discretion to dismiss the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend or respond to attempted contact. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend or respond to attempted contact. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal 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.