Case 6001802/2023 · Employment Tribunal
D Wilbourne-Kay v IP Polymers Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001802/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Wilbourne-Kay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for final hearing at Leeds on 12 January 2024 before Employment Judge Jaleel. Neither party attended. The judgment records that tribunal staff telephoned the claimant and left an answerphone message, and the hearing was delayed by 10 minutes to allow him to join, but he did not attend.
The tribunal said it was satisfied the claimant had been aware of the hearing because correspondence sent on 19 December 2023 contained the hearing details and instructions on how to join. Taking into account that it was for the claimant to establish his claim and having regard to the overriding objective, the tribunal exercised its power under Rule 47 to dismiss the claim for non-attendance.
The judgment does not contain any findings on the underlying merits of the claim, and no remedy was awarded. The order was issued as the judgment of the tribunal and dated 22 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. The judgment records no determination on the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.