Case 3320556/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Byrd v Mr P Diggins and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320556/2021
- Decision date
- 6 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Byrd
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 11 October 2022 at Watford via CVP, Employment Judge Dick recorded that the Claimant did not appear. Mr Adrian Harling appeared for the Respondents. The judgment states that the claims against all three Respondents were dismissed under Rule 47 because of the Claimant's non-attendance.
The written record also notes that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No findings on the merits of the underlying claims are recorded, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records dismissal under Rule 47 for the Claimant's non-attendance; the underlying claim type is taken from the case context/listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records dismissal under Rule 47 for the Claimant's non-attendance; the underlying claim type is taken from the case context/listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records dismissal under Rule 47 for the Claimant's non-attendance; the underlying claim type is taken from the case context/listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.