Case 4100093/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Tinnion Mr. Paul Allan v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100093/2021
- Decision date
- 5 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Tinnion Mr. Paul Allan
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a complaint on 7 January 2021 asserting that the respondent owed him £236 for work done on 24-25 November 2020. He said his employer was not the respondent but Kennedy Consulting Services Ltd, which he said had been engaged by the respondent in connection with work at Perth College. The respondent denied liability on the basis that the claimant was not its employee and was instead a self-employed worker working for KCS.
The claimant did not attend the final hearing on 30 September 2021 and was not represented. The tribunal clerk reported telephone conversations that morning in which the claimant said he was not attending, that he wanted to waste everyone's time and see if the respondent would back out, and that he had never intended to turn up.
In those circumstances, and on the respondent's application, the Employment Judge exercised the power under Rule 47 to dismiss the claim. The tribunal said further enquiries would serve no practical or useful purpose and that dismissal was in the interests of justice and consistent with the overriding objective. The judgment records no determination of the wage claim on its merits and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim sought £236 said to be owed for work done on 24-25 November 2020. The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | 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.