Case 3202087/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Lewis v Maene Restaurant L — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202087/2023
- Decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for a redundancy payment and other payments, described as arrears of pay relating to October 2023. The respondent did not enter a response, and the final hearing was listed by Cloud Video Platform for 11 April 2024.
Neither party attended the hearing. The Tribunal recorded attempts to contact the claimant by telephone and email, noted that the claimant had not responded to earlier directions seeking remedy and employment documents, and found that no satisfactory explanation had been given for the claimant's absence.
The Tribunal considered the file, the claimant's complaints, the need for evidence about the correct employer and the amounts claimed, and the overriding objective. It concluded that the claim could not appropriately be heard in the claimant's absence and dismissed the claim under Rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and did not provide a satisfactory explanation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as other payments, specifically arrears of pay relating to October 2023. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and did not provide a satisfactory explanation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.