Case 3300089/2020 · Employment Tribunal
No Attendance For the v Applied Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300089/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford by CVP on 21 January 2022 before Employment Judge G D Davison. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended or was represented. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been sent the hearing notices and a reminder with CVP instructions, and that on 21 January 2022 it attempted to call the claimant without response. It also noted that the respondent did not provide a phone number and that Companies House showed the respondent as being in liquidation.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal considered the available information about the absence of attendance and decided to dismiss the claims. The judgment states that the claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and breach of contract were dismissed under Rule 47.
The breach of contract claim is described as covering notice pay, holiday pay, and other payments. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment does not set out any liability findings on the merits beyond the procedural dismissal in the absence of attendance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after neither party attended and the tribunal decided to dismiss the claims in the absence of attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed under Rule 47 together with the other claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as breach of contract claims for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments; all were dismissed under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.