Case 2500860/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Wright v Nigel Fletcher — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500860/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment and breach of contract for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. Neither party attended the hearing listed for 5 September 2024.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant had received notice of the hearing at the email address on her claim form and was aware of the hearing date and time. The Tribunal attempted to contact the Claimant by telephone, waited until 10:40am, and noted that the Claimant had not informed the Tribunal that she was unable or unwilling to attend.
Having considered the available information and the history of correspondence, including non-compliance with case management orders, the Tribunal dismissed all claims against the Respondent under Rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as breach of contract for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. Dismissed under Rule 47 after the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 to Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & 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.