Case 3312490/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v W H Brakspear & Sons Ltd T/a The Golden Ball Pub — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312490/2020
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent pub as a sous-chef from 10 August 2020 until 7 September 2020. He presented claims including automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons, dismissal for making protected disclosures, and pay claims. The respondent accepted the notice pay and holiday pay claims, but otherwise defended the case.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not comply with the case management orders made on 20 February 2021, including the direction to explain his compensation claim and exchange documents. After the tribunal wrote in July 2021 about possible strike out, the claimant said he had health problems and would deal with the order, but he still did not comply. He later said he was not good with court documents and asked for an explanation.
The final hearing on 31 January 2022 was by video before Employment Judge Hawksworth sitting alone. The claimant did not attend. The respondent's operations manager attended and confirmed that the respondent did not dispute notice pay or holiday pay. The tribunal ordered payment of £519.23 for notice pay and £167.19 for untaken holiday.
For the remaining claims, the tribunal considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and decided not to proceed in the claimant's absence. It found that the claimant had not actively pursued his claim, had not attended the hearing, and had not explained his absence. It also concluded that it would not be fair to adjourn or reschedule again, so the remaining claims were dismissed under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was not disputed by the respondent, and the tribunal ordered payment of £519.23. | Upheld | — | £519 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for untaken leave was not disputed by the respondent, and the tribunal ordered payment of £167.19. | Upheld | — | £167 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant said he was bringing an automatic unfair dismissal claim for health and safety reasons, but the remaining claims were dismissed under rule 47 after he did not attend and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant also relied on making protected disclosures, but the remaining claims were dismissed under rule 47 after he did not attend and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £686
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 Employment Tribunal 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.