Case 3312890/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance and not represented For the v Mr L Hutchings, Solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312890/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance and not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T McClennaghan was employed by Thai Tana Limited from 8 November 2021 to 27 September 2022 as Head of Operations. He resigned on 5 September 2022 on three months' notice and was placed on garden leave. The respondent then summarily terminated his employment during the notice period because of his failure to return company equipment and an outstanding loan account. The claimant presented his claim on 28 October 2022 seeking payment for the balance of his notice period and complaining of unfair dismissal, while the respondent advanced an employer's contract claim for sums due under the loan account, the value of unreturned property and interest.
The claimant did not attend the final hearing on 24 May 2023, was not represented, and had not responded to the respondent's contract claim. The tribunal noted that he had not exchanged documents or witness statements in accordance with the case management orders and had not otherwise communicated with the respondent or the tribunal since presenting his claim form. On that basis, the tribunal said the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because he had insufficient qualifying service under s.108 ERA 1996. The judgment section recorded that complaint as struck out, while the reasons later described it as dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal also disposed of the claimant's breach of contract complaint against the respondent. The judgment section recorded it as struck out, and the reasons said it was dismissed because the claimant had not actively pursued it, had failed to comply with the tribunal's orders, had adduced no evidence, and had failed to attend the hearing. In contrast, the respondent succeeded on its employer's contract claim: the tribunal entered judgment for the respondent, but said it was not satisfied on the information then before it as to the value of that claim.
Because the respondent's claim had not been quantified, the tribunal made further case management orders. The respondent was ordered to send relevant documents and any witness statement by 7 June 2023, the claimant was given until 21 June 2023 to send any response, and the sum to be awarded to the respondent was to be determined afterwards on the written material unless either party requested a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment section records this complaint as struck out for insufficient qualifying employment. The reasons later describe it as dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment section records the claimant's breach of contract complaint as struck out. The reasons say it was dismissed because the claimant adduced no evidence, did not comply with Tribunal orders, did not actively pursue the claim, and did not attend the hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's employer's contract claim succeeded in principle: the tribunal entered judgment for the respondent, but the amount was not determined at this hearing and was to be assessed later on written material unless a further hearing was requested. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- ET Rules 2013 rr. 21, 23, 25
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.