Case 3204187/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Freddie Lauritzen v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204187/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mack Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Freddie Lauritzen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for a final hearing at the East London Hearing Centre on 24 January 2023 before Employment Judge Mack. The Claimant did not attend and was not represented. The First Respondent was represented, and the Second Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
Because the Claimant failed to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The dismissal was made pursuant to rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal dismissed the redundancy pay claim because the Claimant did not attend and was not represented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for notice pay. It is classified as wrongful dismissal because notice pay is commonly pleaded as breach of contract/wrongful dismissal, but the judgment does not use that label. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim because the Claimant did not attend and was not represented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for arrears of pay. It is classified as unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment does not use that label. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.