Case 2500521/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Wood v Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500521/2023
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Wood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The hearing was listed by video for 10 July 2024 at 2 PM. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been sent notice of the hearing on 3 May 2024 and had been emailed the hearing link and joining instructions on 9 July 2024.
The claimant did not log in for the hearing. The tribunal clerk telephoned the claimant and left a voicemail asking him to contact the tribunal urgently, then made a second unsuccessful attempt after the claimant had not contacted the tribunal by 2:30 PM.
The tribunal found that there was no attendance by the claimant and that it had made all practicable enquiries to find out the reason for his absence. Employment Judge Arullendran dismissed the section 189 claims in accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 47 of the 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.