Case 3303640/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Glyn Hopkin Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303640/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Pagliuca, did not attend the final hearing in Cambridge on 29 October 2019 and was not represented. The respondent, Glyn Hopkin Limited, was represented by Mr Serr, Counsel. The judgment records that, because the claimant did not appear, the claimant's claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant appeared to have behaved unreasonably in not attending the hearing without any reason being given. On that basis, it stated that a costs order against the claimant may be appropriate. The respondent was given permission to apply for costs by 26 November 2019, with the application to specify the costs sought and how they were calculated.
No written reasons were to be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision. No monetary award was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not state the underlying legal basis of the claim in the body of the decision, but the case listing identifies it as an unfair dismissal case. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.