Case 4103639/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sean Timlin v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103639/2020
- Decision date
- 16 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B. Beyzade
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Sean Timlin
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Sean Timlin presented a claim on 6 July 2020 that referred to unfair dismissal, non-payment of wages, holiday pay and notice pay. The respondent did not file a response. The tribunal issued directions seeking clarification of the identity of the employer, the basis of the unfair dismissal claim given the absence of a stated termination date and the claimant's less than two years' service, and the amounts claimed for wages, holiday pay and notice pay. A strike out warning notice was also sent on 4 September 2020 for failure to actively pursue the claim.
The final hearing took place by CVP on 19 March 2021, but the claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded unsuccessful attempts to contact him by telephone and email on the day of the hearing. It was satisfied that notice of hearing had been sent on 22 January 2021 and that a test call had been carried out on 12 March 2021 without issues. In those circumstances, the employment judge assumed the claimant had decided not to proceed and dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented in the claim form; the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim form referred to non-payment of wages; the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 without determining the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was pleaded in the claim form; the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 without a substantive finding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was pleaded in the claim form and treated as a contractual claim; the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47. | 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.