Case 3307756/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Not present and not represented For the first v Mr Pav Clair, solicitor — 2024

Case reference: 3307756/2020
Decision date: 26 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hyams

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Not present and not represented For the first

Respondent

Mr Pav Clair, solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The four claims in case numbers 3307756/2020, 3307747/2020, 3307761/2020 and 3307786/2020 concerned Mr E Donkor, Mr G Evelyn, Ms L Iosif and Ms G Stojkova. Employment Judge Hyams noted that a reserved judgment signed on 3 February 2023 had already dismissed all claims against the then second respondent, Dendron Brands Limited, and that this later hearing on 7 June 2024 was before the remaining respondent, DDD Limited (in Administration), sitting alone by video at Watford.

None of the four claimants attended the hearing. The judge was satisfied that they had been informed in advance of the hearing, including by a link to the video hearing room sent on 6 June 2024, and noted that Shoosmiths had written to them carefully in the first months of 2024 on behalf of the administrators of the respondent. Ms Stojkova had signed a statement on 1 February 2024 withdrawing her claims, while the other three claimants had not responded to the correspondence.

Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal proceeded in the claimants' absence and dismissed the claims because it was clear to the judge that they were not being pursued. The judgment noted that any claimant with a genuine reason for non-attendance could apply for reconsideration within 14 days, but would need cogent evidence to show why they had not attended and why the interests of justice might require revocation of the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Case number 3307756/2020 (Mr E Donkor). Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and the tribunal was satisfied the claim was not being pursued; the underlying substantive claim type is not identified in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Case number 3307747/2020 (Mr G Evelyn). Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and the tribunal was satisfied the claim was not being pursued; the underlying substantive claim type is not identified in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Case number 3307761/2020 (Ms L Iosif). Dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and the tribunal was satisfied the claim was not being pursued; the underlying substantive claim type is not identified in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Case number 3307786/2020 (Ms G Stojkova). The claimant had signed a withdrawal statement on 1 February 2024, and the tribunal nevertheless recorded the claim as dismissed under rule 47 after she did not attend; the underlying substantive claim type is not identified in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.