Case 3200021/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Holmes v Riptide Pools Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200021/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Iman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the final hearing at the East London Hearing Centre, which was held by CVP on 29 April 2024 before Employment Judge S Iman. The tribunal tried to contact Mr Holmes by telephone and email, and also contacted Ms Liu, who said she had attended the hearing centre because she understood the hearing was to be in person. The tribunal found that it had made reasonable enquiries about attendance, had waited a reasonable period, and was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been correctly served on both parties for a CVP hearing.
In the absence of any reasonable explanation from the claimant for failing to attend, the tribunal struck out the claim. The reasons state that the claim in respect of payment of Notice Pay and Statutory Redundancy Pay was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claim was struck out. In the reasons, the tribunal said that, because the claimant did not attend and gave no reasonable explanation, the claim in respect of payment of Notice Pay and Statutory Redundancy Pay was dismissed. The judgment does not split those heads of claim separately. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.