Case 1405332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Rautu v Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405332/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Rautu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal by video on 26 January 2024 before Employment Judge Ferguson. The Claimant did not attend. The Respondent was represented by Ms J Darlington, HR Services Director.
The Tribunal recorded that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing, and under Rule 37(1)(c) because the Claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order. The judgment contains no findings on the merits of the underlying claims and records no award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the case listing/context. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the case listing/context. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 47
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.