Case 3202136/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Turner (2) Mr J Aubrook v FR Shadbold and Sons Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202136/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Turner (2) Mr J Aubrook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed all claims brought by both claimants under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because neither claimant attended the public hearing on 10 September 2025. The respondent also did not attend.
Employment Judge Moor was satisfied that notices of hearing had been sent. After making enquiries of other claimants attending that day, the judge recorded that both claimants were aware of the hearing, that one was at work and one was on holiday, and that there was no application for postponement. The judge concluded that those reasons were not sufficient to proceed in their absence and that evidence on losses was needed before judgment could be decided.
The judgment also records that Mr Turner's claim was brought outside the three month time limit under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994, and that the judge could not consider that claim without hearing evidence about the reason for delay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | All claims brought by both claimants were dismissed under Rule 47 because of non-attendance at the hearing. The judgment also states that Mr Turner's claim was brought outside the three month time limit under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The gov.uk listing identifies redundancy as a category. The judgment itself gives no separate findings on redundancy and dismisses all claims for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The gov.uk listing identifies a protective award category. The judgment itself gives no separate findings on a protective award and dismisses all claims for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- overriding objective (Rule 2)
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994
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.