Case 1401089/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ben Tracey v Beau Bathrooms and Plumbing Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401089/2021
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ben Tracey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat remotely at Bristol before Employment Judge David Hughes. The claimant, Mr Ben Tracey, did not appear and was not represented; the respondent, Beau Bathrooms and Plumbing Ltd, appeared through its director, Mr Daniel Benn.
The judgment states that because the claimant failed to appear, the claimant's claim was dismissed. No substantive findings on the merits of the underlying wage claim are recorded in the written judgment, and no compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded.
The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The extracted text does not record any further legal analysis or specific factual dispute beyond the non-appearance and dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records only that the claimant did not appear and that the claim was dismissed. The claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category, as the judgment text itself does not specify the underlying cause of action. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.