Case 6026939/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Lukasz Rembowski v Altrad Employment Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6026939/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David C.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lukasz Rembowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningLukasz Rembowski brought a breach of contract complaint against Altrad Employment Services Limited on 19 July 2025. He alleged that the employer had failed to provide private healthcare to which he was entitled under his employment contract. He did not attend and was not represented at the hearing on 17 July 2026.
The tribunal found that the claimant had sufficient notice of the hearing. The hearing date had been communicated through the HMCTS portal on 12 January 2026, and the claimant had sent documents to the tribunal on 17 February 2026. That was his last communication with either the tribunal or the respondent. Subsequent emails and a telephone message received no response. On the hearing morning, the tribunal clerk telephoned him twice and sent an email, again without response. He remained absent when the judge returned to the hearing at 10:30.
The judge found no apparent good reason for the claimant's non-attendance and considered that he appeared to have disengaged from the proceedings since February 2026. The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 rather than hearing it in his absence. It did not determine whether the respondent had breached the contract, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 for the claimant's non-attendance. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the alleged breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal 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.