Case 1304049/2023 · Employment Tribunal
No Appearance For the v Midlands Community Homecare and Midlands Community Homecare Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304049/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Appearance For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued by Employment Judge Gaskell at Birmingham on 1 December 2023. It records that neither the claimant nor the respondents attended at the appointed time, and that the tribunal considered the information on the tribunal file.
On that basis, and pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims. The recorded claims were for unpaid wages, breach of contract, unpaid notice pay and other payments.
The judgment does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying employment dispute, liability, or quantum. It is a procedural dismissal made in the absence of both parties, and no monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's claims for unpaid wages were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, after neither party attended the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claims for breach of contract, unpaid notice pay and other payments were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, after neither party attended the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.