Case 3309686/2023 · Employment Tribunal
No Attendance For the v Tempest Rentals (Stickney) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309686/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford by CVP on 13 February 2024 before Employment Judge G D Davison. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended. The tribunal recorded that the notice of hearing had been sent on 21 December 2023 and CVP instructions were sent on 12 February 2024.
On the hearing day the tribunal attempted to call the claimant and received no response. The respondent had not provided a phone number, and although an email address had been provided, no response was received to the clerk's attempt to contact that address. The claimant had not informed the tribunal that he was unable or unwilling to participate.
In those circumstances, and referring to Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal dismissed the claims for breach of contract, which were pleaded as claims for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims for breach of contract, including notice pay, holiday pay and other payments, were dismissed under Rule 47 because neither party attended and the tribunal proceeded in the absence of the parties. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.