Case 3300164/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Revill v Beds of Paradise — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300164/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Revill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Revill filed his ET1 on 10 February 2023 and the claim appeared to be for automatic unfair dismissal. The Respondent filed an ET3 denying the claim, but the Claimant repeatedly failed to provide additional information, did not comply with Tribunal directions, and did not engage with the case management process.
At the private preliminary hearing on 12 August 2025, the Claimant did not attend and had not sent any explanation. Employment Judge Graham noted the Respondent had complied with Tribunal directions and that the Tribunal could not proceed in the Claimant's absence because the Respondent and the Tribunal needed to understand the basis of the complaint. The Judge considered postponement, a strike out warning, and re-listing, but concluded that dismissal under Rule 47 was the appropriate course in light of the repeated non-compliance, delay, and the need to deal fairly and justly with the case and other Tribunal users. The claim was dismissed in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ET1 appeared to make a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal. The claim was not determined on the merits and was dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend and had repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Overriding Objective (Rule 3)
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.