Case 6016609/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Arthur Kaddu v Elizabeth School Of London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016609/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Arthur Kaddu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Arthur Kaddu did not attend the Manchester video hearing on 1 April 2025. The tribunal recorded that attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. The respondent, Elizabeth School Of London Limited, appeared through Miss S Mckenzie.
Employment Judge Buzzard dismissed the claimant's claim for non-attendance pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The judgment does not make any findings on the substantive merits of the underlying claim(s) and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment itself only states that the claim was dismissed for non-attendance under rule 47; the substantive claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment itself only states that the claim was dismissed for non-attendance under rule 47; the substantive claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment itself only states that the claim was dismissed for non-attendance under rule 47; the substantive claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 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.