Case 3308999/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Gill v Fusion Lifestyle and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308999/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Representation
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Gill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the CVP hearing on 22 August 2025. The Tribunal was satisfied that correspondence, including the amended notice of hearing, had been sent to the email address provided by the claimant, and the claimant did not respond to a voicemail left by the Tribunal clerk during the hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been ordered on 2 June 2025 to provide details of his claim by 16 June 2025, but had not done so, had not cooperated with the respondents to prepare a list of issues, and had not attended the preliminary hearing. Taking account of the overriding objective, the Tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety under rule 38 because the claimant had failed to comply with an order and failed to pursue the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing identifies Breach of Contract, but the judgment records that the claim was not fully particularised. The claim was dismissed in its entirety for failure to comply with an order and failure to pursue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing identifies Public Interest Disclosure, but the judgment records that the claim was not fully particularised. The claim was dismissed in its entirety for failure to comply with an order and failure to pursue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 40 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- overriding objective at rule 3 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- rule 69 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.