Case 4110592/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mr S Fowkes v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110592/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
1 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mr S Fowkes
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay and arrears of pay. A preliminary hearing had earlier been postponed after he told the tribunal in December 2021 that he was in hospital with Covid, and the hearing was rearranged for 28 February 2022 by Cloud Video Platform. In the week before that hearing, the tribunal clerk sent repeated emails asking him to take part in a CVP test, but he did not respond, and the telephone number he had provided did not work.
On 28 February 2022 the claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The respondent attended through a solicitor and asked for the case to be struck out, but the Employment Judge treated that submission as a request for dismissal under rule 47 because the hearing had been listed to address employment status and qualifying service and the respondent had not previously had the opportunity to make representations on strike out. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim; no merits findings and no monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 for failure to attend or be represented at the hearing; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was not determined on the merits and was dismissed under rule 47 when the claimant failed to attend or be represented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The arrears of pay claim was not determined on the merits and was dismissed under rule 47 when the claimant failed to attend or be represented. | 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.