Case 3302986/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Coote v BPMS02 Limited (formerly Alamo Blinds & Shutters Limited) (in liquidation) RECORD OF A FINAL HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302986/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Coote
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the first day of the final hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had been properly notified of the hearing and was aware of it, including from contact with the Tribunal shortly before the hearing and his postponement request dated 25 July 2025.
The Tribunal made enquiries and repeated attempts to contact the claimant on 28 July 2025, including warning him that the claim might be dealt with in his absence or struck out if he did not attend. Employment Judge Boyes considered rule 47, the possibility of adjourning, fairness, justice and the overriding objective, and dismissed all complaints because of the claimant's failure to attend.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismisses the automatic unfair dismissal complaint. The gov.uk listing identifies Public Interest Disclosure, but the reasons do not set out the alleged protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal for failure to pay notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment dismisses the complaint of failure to pay holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, described as arrears of pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- overriding objective
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.