Case 4102271/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Thornton v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102271/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr K Thornton
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Thornton presented his claim on 21 April 2020. The final hearing was listed for 19 to 21 July 2021 before Employment Judge M Sangster. On 19 July 2021, the first day of the hearing, the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal noted that there had been no contact from him to either the Tribunal or the respondent's representative from August 2020 onward, that emails were not being returned as undelivered, and that the mobile number on the claim form was no longer recognised.
The Tribunal recorded a number of communications showing that the claimant ought to have been aware of the hearing date, including listing stencils, a notice of hearing, correspondence from the respondent's solicitor about hearing arrangements and a strike-out application, and emails from the Tribunal clerk arranging a CVP test and providing connection details. Having considered the information available and concluded that further enquiries into the claimant's absence were not practicable, the Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action in the reasons. The gov.uk listing categorises the case as unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.