Case 6006449/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McFarlane v Gestamp Tallent Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006449/2025
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McFarlane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a final hearing at Newcastle by CVP on 9 July 2025 before Employment Judge Davies. The claimant, Mr A McFarlane, did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr Dulovic, solicitor.
The reasons record that notice of the final hearing and standard case management orders were sent on 19 March 2025. The respondent had applied to postpone the final hearing because a witness was unavailable, and Employment Judge Sweeney later ordered on 27 June 2025 that the hearing be converted to a preliminary hearing for case management. The claimant had not corresponded with the tribunal about the postponement application, and the tribunal did not have a telephone number for him.
The judge emailed the claimant after the start time of the hearing but received no response by 10.30am. The claimant had not contacted the tribunal to say that he would not be attending or to explain his absence, and he had known about the hearing since 19 March 2025. In those circumstances, the judge was satisfied that dismissal was consistent with the overriding objective and dismissed the claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers only to 'the claim' and does not identify the underlying cause of action in the text. It was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- 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.