Case 3200942/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Bennett v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200942/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Bennett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the final hearing on 5 October 2023. Tribunal staff attempted to contact him by two phone calls and an email directing him to join the hearing, and the hearing was delayed by 15 minutes.
The claimant then contacted Tribunal staff and said he had overlooked the hearing date and was unable to join. The tribunal was satisfied he was aware of the hearing because correspondence sent on 26 June 2023 contained the hearing details and joining instructions, and because he had provided his witness statement to the respondent's representative a week earlier and was sent the hearing bundle the same day confirming the hearing date.
Taking account of the claimant's responsibility to establish his claim and the overriding objective, the tribunal exercised its power under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to dismiss the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing. The judgment listing indicates unfair dismissal, and the judgment refers to a single claim without further issue breakdown. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.