Case 3319473/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Ms Joanne Frew, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3319473/2019
- 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 reasoningThese linked proceedings under case numbers 3319473/2019, 3322537/2019 and 3327459/2019 were part of a wider multiple-claim group brought by Mr O Lasekan against Munnelly Support Services Limited, Munnelly Group Plc and Bishopsgate Contracting Solutions Limited for unpaid wages and holiday pay. The sums claimed by the individual claimants were not stated in the material before the tribunal.
The hearing on 21 November 2022 was listed for case management. The tribunal first tried to contact the claimant by telephone, then emailed him to explain that he needed to attend so that the wages and holiday pay claimed could be identified, and warned that the claims would be dismissed under rule 47 if he did not attend. After a 30-minute adjournment and further calls, the claimant still did not join the hearing and had not replied by email.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Hyams dismissed the claimant's claims. The tribunal noted that the claimant may have had a good reason for not attending, but said that any reconsideration application would need to specify precisely what sums were claimed and the basis of 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 failed to attend the hearing; the judgment refers to unpaid wages collectively and does not state the sums sought. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing; the judgment refers to holiday pay collectively and does not state the sums sought. | 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.