Case 3319471/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Ms Joanne Frew, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3319471/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Foyewa’s claims in case numbers 3319471/2019, 3322535/2019 and 3327457/2019 were listed against Munnelly Support Services Limited, Munnelly Group Plc and Bishopsgate Contracting Solutions Limited. By the time of the 21 November 2022 telephone hearing, the claimant had not responded to the notice of hearing and had not provided a telephone number on which he could be reached.
The tribunal applied rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and decided that the claimant’s claims should be dismissed. The judge recorded that the claimant may have had a good reason for not attending, but there was no explanation before the tribunal and no basis on which to proceed in his absence.
The reasons state that the claims were for unpaid wages and holiday pay, and that the amounts sought by the individual claimants had not been stated. The tribunal also noted that any reconsideration would require the claimant to specify precisely what sums he claimed and the basis for entitlement, because the issues could not otherwise be clarified, including whether he was a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the telephone hearing and had not provided a contact number; the tribunal also noted that the sums sought were not stated. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the telephone hearing and had not provided a contact number; the tribunal also noted that the sums sought were not stated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.