Case 6022750/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Barrow Dental Aesthetic — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022750/2025
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was listed for 15 December 2025 and the arrangements had changed from an in-person hearing to video and then back to clarified video arrangements. Neither party attended in person or by video, and attempts to contact the Claimant by mobile phone were unsuccessful.
The Judge noted the discretion to dismiss under rule 47, including the increased risk of confusion because of the changes to the hearing arrangements. The Judge also recorded that the Claimant had not complied with previous directions and concluded that the clear impression was that the Claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim. The claim was dismissed in the interests of justice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 after non-attendance. The breach of contract classification comes from the listed case category rather than detailed adjudication in the reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 after non-attendance. The working time classification comes from the listed case category rather than detailed adjudication in the reasons. | 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.