Case 3301266/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Courtney Shaw v Serco Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301266/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs. S. Fritz, Mrs. S. Bannister
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. Courtney Shaw
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and parity of pay under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010. The final hearing had previously been postponed from July 2023 to 11, 12 and 13 March 2024, and the claimant was aware of the resumed dates.
The claimant did not attend the first day of the resumed final hearing and did not contact the Tribunal or the parties before the hearing began. After the Tribunal clerk contacted him, he asked for more time because of issues concerning legal representation and preparation. The Tribunal refused the postponement application because the respondents did not consent, the application was not caused by an act or omission of another party or the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was not satisfied there were exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47. It found that the claimant had not attended to establish matters including employee status, entitlement to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, or a prima facie case in respect of race discrimination. The Tribunal also ordered the claimant to show cause why he should not pay the second respondent's costs of attendance on 11 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and did not establish a prima facie case. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as a notice pay claim. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | The judgment described this as a parity of pay claim pursuant to the Agency Worker Regulations 2010. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 30A of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
- Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 78 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & 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.