Case 6005431/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Nathan Clarke v Dream Bi Folding Doors Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005431/2024
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nathan Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 21 July 2025, Employment Judge Cline sat alone. Neither Nathan Clarke nor Dream Bi Folding Doors Limited attended the hearing, and neither was represented. The written judgment states that the entirety of the claimant’s claim was dismissed for non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Because the dismissal was procedural, the tribunal did not determine the claim on its merits and no remedy was awarded. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record, and that the decision was sent to the parties on 21 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not identify the substantive pleading; the case context lists the matter as breach of contract. The claim was dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.