Case 6004335/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Andrew v Marks and Spencer plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004335/2025
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Daniel Andrew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims identified in the claim form as unfair dismissal and other payments, with particulars stating that he sought four weeks' sick pay. He later amended the claim to add details of his unfair dismissal complaint concerning dismissal for gross misconduct on 21 November 2024.
The claimant did not comply with case management directions or respond to later correspondence after 8 May 2025. He did not attend the final hearing on 2 October 2025, despite the tribunal clerk attempting to contact him by phone and email that morning.
Employment Judge Woodhead considered the available information about the claimant's absence and concluded that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant ticked 'other payments' and sought four weeks' sick pay of GBP 1,800; the claim was dismissed under Rule 47 without any award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 (Non-attendance) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.