Case 3309922/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hannington v Keystone Construction Services Ltd (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309922/2022
- Decision date
- 24 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Margo Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Hannington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim against the Second Respondent for payment of monies from the National Insurance Fund, and any claims against the First Respondent for redundancy, holiday, notice or other elements of pay, under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules because the Claimant did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had been informed of the in-person hearing and that the Second Respondent's representative had also spoken to him before the hearing to ensure he was aware of it. The Claimant emailed the representative shortly before 11am on the hearing day saying he could not attend because of the bereavement of a close friend, but did not send or copy that email to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the Claimant had not provided details about when the friend died or why this prevented attendance, and had not asked for the hearing to be postponed or relisted. Taking account of the burden on the Claimant to prove his claim, including employment status, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment dismissed any claim for payment of redundancy against the First Respondent and the claim against the Second Respondent for payment of monies from the National Insurance Fund under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment dismissed any claim for holiday pay under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment referred to notice pay; this has been classified as breach of contract. It was dismissed under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment referred to other elements of pay; this has been classified as unlawful deduction from wages. It was dismissed under Rule 47 due to the Claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the ET Rules
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.