Case 1400950/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Impact Call Centre Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400950/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton on 30 October 2019 before Employment Judge Emerton sitting alone. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Ms K Casey-Evans, solicitor.
The written judgment states that, because the claimant failed to attend or to be represented at the hearing, his claims were dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment gives oral reasons at the hearing, but no written reasons were provided in the record supplied.
No merits findings or remedy award are recorded in the written judgment. The only recorded outcome is dismissal of the claims for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The written judgment records that the claimant failed to attend or be represented and that his claims were dismissed under rule 47; it does not separately analyse the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment records that the claimant failed to attend or be represented and that his claims were dismissed under rule 47; it does not separately analyse the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment records that the claimant failed to attend or be represented and that his claims were dismissed under rule 47; it does not separately analyse the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.