Case 6005022/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Everitt v Café 206 — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005022/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shergill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Everitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal was satisfied that both parties had been duly notified, and the clerk attempted to contact the claimant three times without answer.
The judgment records claims for notice pay and holiday pay, and a potential redundancy claim under TUPE, with compensation in the ET1 totalling £1,152. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not complied with an order to provide information about compensation and income, and that there was limited evidence on which to make a reasoned substantive judgment.
The judge considered strike out under Rule 37(1)(c) or (d), but decided it was more appropriate to dismiss under Rule 47 for non-attendance. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant claimed she was owed notice pay. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claimant claimed she was owed holiday pay, but also states there was no separately claimed holiday pay amount. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment describes a potential claim for redundancy under TUPE. It is unclear whether this was fully particularised, and the claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47
- Rule 37(1)(c) or (d)
- 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.