Case 6002046/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Karl Adam Watson v Redpath Deilmann UK Limited AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002046/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Karl Adam Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 21 November 2024, Employment Judge Lancaster amended the respondent’s title to Redpath Deilmann UK Limited and dismissed the claim. The claimant, Mr Karl Adam Watson, did not attend the hearing, did not answer his mobile telephone during an adjournment, and did not respond to a voicemail before the case resumed.
The tribunal recorded that the notice of hearing had been sent to the email address given on the ET1 on 16 July 2024, and that the respondent’s solicitors had later received confirmation from the claimant on 29 October 2024 that this was his correct email address for correspondence. The respondent’s representatives had also tried to contact him in preparation for the hearing on 31 October, 4 November, 7 November and 11 November 2024, but he did not reply.
On that basis, the tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was aware of the listed hearing. It also noted that, although this was only the first preliminary hearing, the history of not actively pursuing the claim, together with the fact that the complaint as pleaded was largely unparticularised and concerned automatically unfair dismissal by an employee with less than two years’ continuous service, meant it was proportionate to dismiss the claim at that stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not identify the statutory basis beyond describing the matter as a largely unparticularised complaint of automatically unfair dismissal. It dismissed the claim at a preliminary hearing after the claimant failed to attend and the tribunal considered the claim as pleaded did not obviously have a reasonable prospect of success. | 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.