Case 2500966/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bistis v Simply Greek (NE) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500966/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bistis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Bistis did not attend or arrange representation at the hearing on 3 April 2023. The respondent attended through its director, Mr W Oates. The tribunal made enquiries about the claimant's absence, but no response or explanation was provided.
Employment Judge Martin considered the material already before the tribunal, including further information provided by the claimant after the order made on 14 October 2022. She concluded that she could not determine the holiday pay and notice pay claims on that documentation alone because oral evidence from the claimant was needed. The tribunal found that there were issues in dispute on both claims which could not be resolved without hearing evidence.
The claimant's claims for breach of the Working Time Regulations, described as holiday pay, and breach of contract, described as notice pay, were therefore both dismissed under Rule 47 procedure in the claimant's absence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim identified in the judgment as a breach of the Working Time Regulations claim for holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim identified in the judgment as a breach of contract claim for notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to 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.