Case 6011329/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Bruce Royce v Spork Digital Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011329/2025
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bruce Royce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBruce Royce’s listed claims against Spork Digital Limited were listed for hearing on 8 September 2025 before Employment Judge A.M.S Green. The claimant did not attend, gave no explanation, and made no application for a postponement.
The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had been properly notified of the hearing and decided that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the tribunal dismissed the claims.
No written reasons were provided in the judgment record beyond the Rule 47 dismissal and the finding that the claimant had not attended. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing; the tribunal was satisfied he had been properly notified and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing; the tribunal was satisfied he had been properly notified and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing; the tribunal was satisfied he had been properly notified and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals 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.