Case 4102107/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Hayter v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102107/2020
- Decision date
- 6 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Hayter
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was held by CVP on 5 October 2020 before Employment Judge R King. The respondent attended with its witnesses and was ready to proceed, but Mr Philip Hayter did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal recorded that his former representatives had withdrawn on 25 September 2020 and that, after that date, he had not contacted the tribunal or the respondent.
The tribunal noted that joining details for the CVP test on 2 October 2020 and for the final hearing had been emailed to the claimant, and that the tribunal clerk had tried unsuccessfully to contact him by telephone on 2 October 2020 and on the morning of the hearing. Mr Hayter had not explained his absence. Miss Badham applied for the claim to be dismissed for non-attendance. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and having made all practicable enquiries into the reason for absence, the tribunal concluded that it was in the interests of justice and consistent with the overriding objective to dismiss the claim. No costs application was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend or arrange representation at the final hearing; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | 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.