Case 3200400/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Cobey v Kelvedon Auto Spares 87 Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200400/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Feeny Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Cobey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 17 August 2023, Employment Judge J Feeny heard a full merits hearing in Mr R Cobey's claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages against Kelvedon Auto Spares 87 Limited. The Claimant did not attend and was not represented. The Respondent attended through counsel and solicitor, with three witnesses present.
The tribunal had previously received an email from the Claimant on 31 May 2023 saying he wanted to cancel his claim because he had received a letter warning that he might be liable for the Respondent's solicitor's fees. After that, the tribunal wrote on 10 July 2023 asking him to confirm whether he wished to withdraw and advising him to seek independent legal advice. Further letters were sent on 4 August 2023 and 15 August 2023. There was no response. The Respondent's solicitor said he had also attended the Claimant's home twice to deliver the hearing papers, which he left with the Claimant's mother.
The judge found that reasonable enquiries had been made and that the Claimant's non-attendance was deliberate rather than accidental. Because the Claimant had not engaged with the hearing, had not provided disclosure or a witness statement, and did not attend when the case was called on, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 without hearing evidence on the substantive issues. No separate merits findings were made on the unpaid wages complaint because the dismissal disposed of the case as a whole.
The tribunal added that if it had been wrong to dismiss under Rule 47 and had instead proceeded in the Claimant's absence, the unfair dismissal complaint would in any event have failed on jurisdiction. The tribunal found the most likely effective date of termination was 28 October 2022, or 31 October 2022 at the latest, so the ET1 presented on 28 February 2023 was out of time. ACAS early conciliation took place on 6 to 8 February 2023, after the limitation period had already expired, and there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance; in the alternative, the tribunal said it would have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time under s.111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this head as unpaid wages. It was dismissed as part of the overall Rule 47 dismissal, without separate substantive findings on the wage complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.