Case 6003975/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dylan Hannigan v Metropolitan School of Business and Management UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003975/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge I Comfort Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dylan Hannigan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 20 March 2025. It held that there was no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked under Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The reasons record that the final hearing on 14 March 2025 proceeded in the absence of both parties, that the clerk tried to contact the claimant, and that there was no correspondence explaining his absence. The claimant later said he had been unable to attend because of a family bereavement, but the tribunal said that did not explain why he had not informed the tribunal at the time. The judge also stated that the further points raised did not undermine the original finding that the respondent was not incorporated when the claimant was contracted to work and was not his employer.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This is a reconsideration judgment. The underlying dispute is described as a claim for unpaid wages, and the tribunal refused reconsideration after stating that the respondent was not the claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This is a reconsideration judgment. The underlying notice pay claim was not reopened, and the tribunal stated that the respondent was not the claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 70 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- interests of justice
- reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked
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.