Le Petit Moulin Traiteur Ltd
Decision Overview
Case Summary
The claimant brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay against the respondent employer. The claimant failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 9 March 2026 without valid reason after being given clear notice and despite an earlier missed hearing in October 2025. The tribunal dismissed all claims under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 due to the claimant's failure to comply with orders and non-attendance.
Why this outcome?
Non-compliance with ordersThe claimant failed to attend the hearing on 9 March 2026 without adequate justification. Although the claimant emailed on 6 March 2026 stating he could not attend due to family health problems in Italy, Employment Judge French directed dismissal under rule 47. The claimant had previously failed to attend an earlier preliminary hearing and had not complied with case management orders requiring him to copy correspondence to the respondent.
Key Issues
- •Whether claimant's claims of detrimental treatment under section 47B ERA 1996 should be dismissed
- •Whether unfair dismissal claims under sections 98 and 103A ERA 1996 should be dismissed
- •Whether unpaid holiday pay claim under Working Time Regulations 1998 should be dismissed
- •Non-compliance with case management orders and failure to attend hearing
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
The claimant brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay against the respondent employer.
The claimant brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay against the respondent employer.
The claimant brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay against the respondent employer.
Decision Text
1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr A Funicello v Le Petit Moulin Traiteur Ltd Heard at: Watford, via Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”) On: 9 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Hyams, sitting alone Appearances: For the claimant: Not present or represented For the respondent: Mr Andrius Bareckas, Director, assisted by Ms Tatiana Gudaviciene JUDGMENT The claimant’s claims with the above case number (they are of detrimental treatment within the meaning of section 47B for the Employment Rights Act 1996, unfair dismissal within the meaning of both section 98 and section 103A of that Act, and for unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998) are dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. REASONS 1 In these proceedings, the claimant claims (it was possible to discern from the brief details of the claim and the compensation sought in the ET1 claim form) that he was dismissed unfairly, treated detrimentally within the meaning of section 47B for the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that when he was dismissed he was owed accrued holiday pay which he has not received. I inferred that the 2 claim was of unfair dismissal within the meaning of both section 98 and section 103A of that Act. 2 The case was listed for a preliminary hearing to take place via CVP on 27 October 2025. That hearing took place on that day. It was conducted by Employment Judge (“EJ”) Douse. Her record of the hearing was, however, not produced until 25 January 2026, and it was sent to the parties on 4 February 2026. What happened at the hearing was stated in the following paragraphs under the heading “Discussion”. “1. This case was listed for case management. Neither party had completed the case management agenda, and no documents were provided to me before the hearing. 2. Just after midday today, the C...
Case Facts
- Claimant
- Mr A Funicello
- Case Number
- 6018385/2024
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision Date
- 13 March 2026
- Published
- 13 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Representation
- Litigant in person