Case 3335017/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bateman v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335017/2018
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Did
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Bateman
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Bateman presented claims on 27 November 2018 against Rammacom Limited. The tribunal recorded that the claims for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid wages were presented after the expiry of the 3 month time limit, and no explanation for the delay was given. Those claims were therefore dismissed.
The redundancy payment claim was not out of time, but the tribunal said there was insufficient information provided to make a determination on it. The respondent did not enter a response and the company had been dissolved on 26 February 2019. The claimant told the tribunal on 19 September 2019 that he would not attend the hearing on 20 September 2019, and neither party attended or was represented at the hearing.
In those circumstances, the Employment Judge dismissed all claims under rule 47. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal said it was presented after the 3 month time limit and no explanation for the delay was given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim. The tribunal said it was presented after the 3 month time limit and no explanation for the delay was given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages claim. The tribunal said it was presented after the 3 month time limit and no explanation for the delay was given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said this claim was not out of time, but there was insufficient information provided to make a determination on it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.