Case 3300411/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Allison Hughes v Knights of Old Limited (in administration), — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300411/2024
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Allison Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Watford Employment Tribunal by CVP on 28 April 2025 before Employment Judge Young. The claimant did not attend and the respondent did not appear.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to attend the hearing. Under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the claimant's claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded and no written reasons were provided in the judgment, although the judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant's claim was dismissed under rule 47 after she failed to attend. The specific head of claim is not set out in the judgment text; classification follows the supplied listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claimant's claim was dismissed under rule 47 after she failed to attend. The specific head of claim is not set out in the judgment text; classification follows the supplied listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The supplied listing category includes Protective Award, which has no specific locked taxonomy enum. The judgment itself only states that the claimant's claim was dismissed under rule 47 after she failed to attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.