Case 6020346/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Reuben Adeniran v KM Renovations Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020346/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Reuben Adeniran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Reuben Adeniran's claim against KM Renovations was dismissed following his non-attendance at the CVP hearing on 17 April 2025. Neither party attended or was represented. The respondent had not submitted a response by the deadline of 2 January 2025.
When the claimant failed to attend at 2 pm, the tribunal clerk telephoned him but reached a recorded message stating that he was unavailable. The clerk was then instructed to email him, warning that he needed to attend by 2:30 pm or provide a valid explanation for his absence, failing which his claim would be dismissed. By 2:40 pm, he had neither responded nor joined the hearing.
Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 permits dismissal or a hearing in a party's absence after consideration of available information and practicable enquiries into the reasons for absence. The judge found that the claim form contained insufficient details to determine any entitlement without the claimant's attendance. Having considered the available information and made those enquiries, the judge dismissed the claim. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 following the claimant's non-attendance, without a determination of entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 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.