Case 4100001/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gray v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100001/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J McCluskey
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Gray
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final hearing in which Mr M Gray’s claim for arrears of pay was listed for determination. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had been notified of the CVP hearing date, had indicated on his ET1 that he could take part in a video hearing, and had been invited on several occasions to test the CVP link and confirm his attendance. No response was received to those communications, and the claimant did not attend the hearing on 17 March 2022.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Employment Judge considered the information available about the claimant’s absence. There was no information at all explaining why he did not attend, and the Tribunal concluded that he did not insist upon his claim. Taking account of the overriding objective, the Judge decided it was fair and just to dismiss the claim in the claimant’s absence.
The judgment does not determine the arrears-of-pay claim on its merits. It is a dismissal following non-attendance, and the Tribunal noted that any reconsideration would require a proper explanation for the claimant’s absence if sought within the usual time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The final hearing was fixed to determine a claim for arrears of pay, but the Tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and had not provided any explanation for his absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
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.