Claimant v Thomas Murton
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed due to claimant's non-attendance at hearing despite tribunal enquiries, failure to respond to tribunal correspondence, claim being out of time with no explanation, uncertainty as to employment status, and likely wrong respondent named (individual rather than company Canon Brickwork Ltd).
Facts
Claimant worked one day as a construction site labourer on 24 June 2024 and alleged non-payment of wages. He entered ACAS early conciliation on 2 December 2024 and filed his claim on 4 December 2024, over five months after the work. The ACAS certificate named Canon Brickwork Ltd but the claim named Thomas Murton, an individual employee. Neither party attended the hearing and the claimant failed to respond to multiple tribunal letters.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 for non-pursuit. The claimant had failed to attend the hearing or respond to correspondence, filed the claim outside the three-month time limit with no explanation, likely named the wrong respondent (an individual rather than the company), and faced uncertainty as to whether he had worker/employee status for casual one-day work.
Practical note
Claims for unlawful deduction of wages for casual day-work face multiple hurdles including proving worker status, naming the correct employer entity, and meeting strict time limits — and unrepresented claimants must engage with tribunal correspondence to avoid dismissal for non-pursuit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020803/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Thomas Murton
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- construction site labourer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No