Case 6023031/2024 · Employment Tribunal
D Scott v Dimond Fashion (Liverpool) Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023031/2024
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Scott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video at Liverpool on 29 April 2025 before Employment Judge Buzzard. Neither party appeared, and the respondent had filed no defence. The tribunal recorded that attempts to contact the claimant were unsuccessful and that there was no information suggesting the claimant intended to continue pursuing the claims.
After waiting until 30 minutes after the scheduled hearing time, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the claimant failed to appear. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claims or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 after the claimant failed to appear; the judgment does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Protective award category from the case listing; dismissed as part of the general rule 47 dismissal, with no separate merits analysis in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 after the claimant failed to appear; the judgment does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 after the claimant failed to appear; the judgment does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 after the claimant failed to appear; the judgment does not separately analyse this claim. | 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.