Case 3203139/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Piotr Mackowski v JHM Recruitment Specialists — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203139/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Piotr Mackowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Piotr Mackowski presented claims on 9 May 2022 alleging age discrimination and arrears of pay against JHM Recruitment Specialists. The respondent accepted that it employed the claimant from 7 September 2020 until 30 October 2020, but disputed the claimant's account and said he had been paid all sums due.
The case was listed for a closed preliminary hearing by telephone on 19 October 2022 before Employment Judge Barrowclough. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal clerk repeatedly telephoned the claimant using the contact number given in the ET1, but there was no response and no alternative contact number had been provided.
Because neither the claimant nor anyone on his behalf joined the hearing by 10.30 am, the tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 for failure to attend the hearing without reasonable cause. The judgment records no determination on the underlying merits of either the age discrimination claim or the arrears-of-pay claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 19 October 2022 without reasonable cause; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The arrears-of-pay claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 19 October 2022 without reasonable cause; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.