Case 2501148/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Brydon v Pacifica group (0800 repair) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501148/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Brydon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing heard at Newcastle in private by telephone on 9 December 2022 before Employment Judge Aspden. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr Melvin.
The tribunal recorded that, because the claimant failed to attend, the claimant’s claim was dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on the underlying claims, and it states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant failed to attend the hearing and that the claim was dismissed pursuant to rule 47. The breach of contract classification comes from the gov.uk listing category, not from any merits findings in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant failed to attend the hearing and that the claim was dismissed pursuant to rule 47. The unlawful deduction from wages classification comes from the gov.uk listing category, not from any merits findings in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.