Case 1405490/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Robertson v Southern Counties Liming Ltd c/o Dave Chandler — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405490/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yallop REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Robertson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim before Employment Judge Yallop at Southampton on 24 April 2025 concerned unpaid pension contributions. The Respondent said employer and employee pension contributions, including sums owed to the Claimant, had accidentally not been paid to the pension company, and that it had entered into a payment plan to put the position right. In correspondence dated 14 September 2024, the Claimant said some of the money had been paid but £1,691.14 was still owed.
The Claimant did not attend the hearing and had not engaged with the case management orders sent with the Notice of Hearing on 29 October 2024. The Tribunal made attempts to contact him by email and telephone, but there was no response. Having considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and noting that it had no evidence of the current pension position or whether any sum remained outstanding, the Tribunal decided that an adjournment or Unless Order would not be proportionate and dismissed the claim for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as one for unpaid pension contributions. It was dismissed under rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal made no substantive finding on whether £1,691.14 remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.