Case 4112518/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. W Murray v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 4112518/2021
Decision date: 4 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge B Beyzade

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr. W Murray

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr W Murray lodged a claim for holiday pay and other payments. In correspondence with the tribunal, he said he was claiming five weeks' holiday, could not say how much he was claiming for the alleged failure to provide rest breaks, and noted that the respondent was in voluntary liquidation. He also said he may be entitled to a redundancy payment and applied to amend the claim to include that head.

The final hearing was listed for 16 February 2022 by CVP. Neither party appeared. The tribunal recorded that notice of hearing had been sent, that attempts were made to contact the claimant by telephone and email, that the telephone number provided was not in service, and that the claimant had not responded to attempts to arrange a CVP test or otherwise communicated with the tribunal.

After waiting beyond the listed start time and adjourning to allow further opportunity for attendance or contact, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It said it had proceeded on the assumption that the claimant's unexplained non-attendance meant he did not intend to insist on the claim, and it took account of the overriding objective in Rule 2. The judgment noted that if that assumption was wrong, the claimant could consider an application for reconsideration.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Holiday pay	The claimant said he was claiming five weeks' holiday. The tribunal dismissed the whole claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing; no merits determination was made on this head.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	The claimant said he could not quantify the amount claimed for failure to provide rest breaks. The tribunal dismissed the whole claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing; no merits determination was made on this head.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The claimant indicated he might be entitled to a redundancy payment and sought to amend the claim to include it. The tribunal dismissed the whole claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing; no merits determination was made on this head.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.