Case 6005788/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Barsby v Simon Wilson deputy for Thomas Bailey — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005788/2024
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Barsby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a remote hearing by video on 14 February 2025 before Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone. The claimant, Mr Neil Barsby, did not attend or participate. The respondent was represented by Ms C Lauret, litigation executive.
The tribunal recorded that notice of hearing, joining instructions, and other correspondence had been sent to the claimant, and was satisfied that he either knew or ought to have known about the hearing. The claimant had not requested an adjournment. The judge also noted that the respondent had emailed a settlement agreement dated after the claim form was issued, copied to the claimant, and inferred that the claimant had not attended because he had resolved the case.
Because the case had not been withdrawn, the tribunal struck out the proceedings under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 due to the claimant's non-attendance. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the breach of contract or public interest disclosure claims, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out after the claimant did not attend the hearing; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out after the claimant did not attend the hearing; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals 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.