Case 1305475/2020 · Employment Tribunal
no appearance v Mr T Scaria — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305475/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
no appearance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham on 7 April 2022 before Employment Judge Broughton. The claimant did not attend and the respondent appeared in person.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed under rule 47 and/or struck out under rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment does not identify the individual procedural disposal for each claim in the written record, and no monetary award is recorded.
The record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No lay members are listed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing indicates an unfair dismissal claim. The judgment states the claimant's claims were dismissed under rule 47 and/or struck out under rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (c), without allocating that disposal by individual claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing indicates an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The judgment states the claimant's claims were dismissed under rule 47 and/or struck out under rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (c), without allocating that disposal by individual claim. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing indicates a working time claim. The judgment states the claimant's claims were dismissed under rule 47 and/or struck out under rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (c), without allocating that disposal by individual claim. | Other | — | — |
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.