Case 6010575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Darren Evans v Powdr Coater Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010575/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Darren Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Darren Evans, brought a claim against Powdr Coater Limited. The hearing took place at Cardiff by video on 28 April 2025 before Employment Judge K Hunt, with neither party attending.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not provide written representations 7 days in advance of the hearing. The written judgment records no findings on the merits of the underlying claim categories and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not provide written representations 7 days in advance. It does not give reasons on the substance of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not provide written representations 7 days in advance. It does not give reasons on the substance of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not provide written representations 7 days in advance. It does not give reasons on the substance of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.