Case 2602680/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Clipsham v David Thomas Helley t/a CNC Rotary.com — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602680/2018
- Decision date
- 5 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Clipsham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought an unfair dismissal complaint received on 29 November 2018, alleging that he had been made redundant without consultation and saying he had been employed by CNC Rotary from 1 November 2014 to 10 September 2018. The Respondent said his employment with them had ended by mutual agreement on 31 October 2017, that he had thereafter been employed by PL Solutions Switzerland Limited, and that he therefore lacked the continuity of employment needed for the claim and was out of time.
The Tribunal records that orders were sent requiring the Claimant to provide a remedy statement and exchange documents, but he did not comply. After further non-response to the Tribunal's 3 April 2019 letter and the subsequent unless order made on 24 May 2019, the claim was dismissed on 5 June 2019 under Rule 38.
On the Respondent's later costs application under Rules 76 and 77, the Tribunal did not accept the contention that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, or that it had been unreasonable to bring the claim on the basis advanced, because it only had the pleadings and not the contract said to exist with PL Solutions Switzerland Limited. However, it found clear evidence that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in the way the proceedings were conducted, having ignored Tribunal communications and the Respondent's warning letter of 11 March 2019.
The costs order was therefore limited to work done after service of the response. The Tribunal assessed that as two hours at £225 per hour, plus VAT, and ordered the Claimant to pay £450 plus VAT.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Claimant presented an unfair dismissal complaint alleging redundancy without consultation. The claim was later dismissed under Rule 38 after he did not respond to the Tribunal's orders and the unless order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Respondent's Rule 76 costs application succeeded in part. The Tribunal rejected the no reasonable prospect of success and jurisdiction-based arguments, but found the Claimant had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings by ignoring Tribunal communications and the Respondent's costs warning. | Upheld | — | £450 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £450
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 77 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and 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.