Case 6017496/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gardner v Evolve Fire and Security Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017496/2024
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gardner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal by CVP on 26 March 2025 before Employment Judge Dunlop. The claimant, Mr D Gardner, did not attend. The respondent was represented by its director, Mr M Marlow. The tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Evolve Fire and Security Limited.
The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. The judgment records that, following a telephone call received by the tribunal, it appeared the reason for non-attendance was that the claimant no longer wished to pursue the claim, although no formal notice of withdrawal had been received by the time of the hearing.
The written record also notes that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the decision. No remedy or compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal noted a telephone call suggesting he no longer wished to pursue the claim, but no formal withdrawal had been received. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal noted a telephone call suggesting he no longer wished to pursue the claim, but no formal withdrawal had been received. | 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.