Case 3304965/2023 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304965/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Watford Employment Tribunal on 5 December 2023 before Employment Judge French. The claimant, Mr M Newson, did not attend. The Tribunal recorded that it attempted to telephone him to ascertain his whereabouts, gave him additional time to attend, and had received no correspondence from him about his non-attendance.
Upon the claimant's non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any determination of the merits of the pleaded unfair dismissal or public interest disclosure matters identified in the gov.uk listing categories.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing categories identify Unfair Dismissal, but the judgment itself dismisses 'the claim' under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and does not set out the substantive claim details. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing categories identify Public Interest Disclosure, but the judgment itself dismisses 'the claim' under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and does not set out the substantive claim details. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.