Case 3203316/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v I G Nistor T/a MGM Ventures — 2021
- Case reference
- 3203316/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 26 October 2021 at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge A M Buchanan sitting alone. The claimants did not attend and had not applied for an adjournment or given any explanation for their non-attendance. The clerk telephoned the numbers on file, and both claimants said they wished to withdraw their claims, but no written confirmation was received, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 47 and took account of the claim forms and other material on the file.
The respondent had applied on 18 October 2021 to strike out the claims because the claimants had not complied with the case management orders issued on 2 June 2021 and had failed actively to pursue their claims. The tribunal granted that application and struck out all claims advanced by each claimant under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The note also records that the first claimant had been warned that the tribunal was considering striking out her unfair dismissal claim because she did not have two years' continuous service and therefore had no right to bring such a claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment made no award of compensation or other monetary remedy. The respondent raised costs, and the tribunal directed that any costs application must be made in writing in accordance with Rules 74 to 84 of the 2013 Rules.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Expressly mentioned in note 3; the tribunal recorded a warning that the first claimant may not have two years' continuous service and therefore no right to bring such a claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case listing supplied with the proceedings. The judgment itself does not separately discuss merits and records that all claims advanced by each claimant were struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case listing supplied with the proceedings. The judgment itself does not separately discuss merits and records that all claims advanced by each claimant were struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the case listing supplied with the proceedings. The judgment itself does not separately discuss merits and records that all claims advanced by each claimant were struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.