Case 3303030/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shaun Betty v Alliance Automotive UK LV Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303030/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shaun Betty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a parts advisor from 19 October 2022 until 20 November 2023. The claim form was presented on 13 March 2024, and a preliminary hearing was listed for 21 February 2025, which the claimant did not attend.
Employment Judge Moore relisted the hearing for 25 July 2025 and issued an unless order requiring the claimant to confirm within 21 days that he intended to pursue the claim and explain his non-attendance. The claimant did not comply by 27 March 2025, did not attend the 25 July 2025 hearing, and attempts to telephone him went to voicemail.
Employment Judge Codd proceeded in the claimant's absence and dismissed the claim under Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 for failure to comply with the unless order. The judgment did not make findings on the merits of the pleaded claims or award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed for failure to comply with the unless order dated 21 February 2025; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was dismissed for failure to comply with the unless order dated 21 February 2025; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was dismissed for failure to comply with the unless order dated 21 February 2025; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.