Case 1304812/2023 · Employment Tribunal
M. Bird v Rock IT Music Projects LIMITED — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304812/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M. Bird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal noted that the Respondent appeared to have paid the Claimant £1,428 on 22 July 2023, described in the judgment as the total sum claimed in the claim for unpaid wages. After that date, the Claimant did not respond to Tribunal correspondence and did not comply with orders requiring a witness statement, a schedule of loss, or comments on the Respondent's correspondence.
The Tribunal also recorded that it made telephone and email enquiries about whether the Claimant would attend the hearing, but received no reply. The Claimant did not attend the hearing on 23 November 2023, and the judgment states that the claim was dismissed due to non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (as amended) 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal noted that the Respondent appeared to have paid the Claimant £1,428 on 22 July 2023, being the total sum claimed for unpaid wages. The Claimant did not attend the hearing, did not respond to Tribunal correspondence, and did not comply with orders to provide a witness statement, schedule of loss, or comments on the Respondent's correspondence. The claim was dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (as amended) 2013. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (as amended) 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.