Case 3300100/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Ms Y Isik (Manager) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300100/2021
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr N Bascoe-Thompson, brought a claim for unpaid holiday pay against Isik Limited. The hearing was listed for 21 October 2021 at Watford and an amended notice of hearing was emailed to the claimant using the address he had provided to the tribunal. The tribunal also attempted to contact him by telephone before and on the day of the hearing, and an email was sent on the hearing day, but he did not respond or attend.
Ms Y Isik attended for the respondent. The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had adequate notice of the hearing and that all practicable enquiries had been taken to identify why he was absent. No reasons for non-attendance were given. Neither side produced documents, no witness statements were served, and the claimant’s contract was not before the tribunal. In those circumstances, the tribunal said it could not proceed to hear the claim substantively in the claimant’s absence.
As the claimant still had not attended more than 30 minutes after the hearing was due to start, Employment Judge Smeaton dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay dismissed after the claimant failed to attend the hearing and the tribunal proceeded under rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.