Case 6008414/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Hamilton v Talk of the Town (Beverages and Sauces) Ltd Heard: Birmingham — 2026
- Case reference
- 6008414/2024
- Decision date
- 25 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Hamilton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr F Hamilton was employed as a chef and manager and was dismissed on 13 May 2024. He presented a claim on 13 August 2024 alleging unfair dismissal, unpaid wages including holiday pay, and a failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. Early conciliation took place between 22 May 2024 and 19 June 2024.
The respondent’s response was lodged one day late and, because no application was made to extend time, it was rejected on 30 October 2024. The matter was listed for a two-day final hearing on 5 and 6 March 2025, with directions for evidence and a hearing bundle. The tribunal recorded that both parties had been on notice of the hearing since 21 August 2024, but no bundle was received despite two chasing letters from the tribunal.
Neither party attended the hearing on 5 March 2025 and neither provided a written explanation for their absence. Having considered the file, Employment Judge Codd said the claim form was inadequate to support judgment in the claimant’s favour because the losses were not quantifiable without further evidence. The tribunal therefore struck out the claims under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 on the basis that they had not been actively pursued. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was listed in the claim form and struck out under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pleaded as unpaid wages, including holiday pay; struck out under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Pleaded as a failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; struck out under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.