Case 1600373/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Howard v Nurtured Future Livings Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600373/2021
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Howard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J. Howard, did not attend the hearing listed for 15 October 2021. The tribunal recorded that notice of hearing had been sent using the information provided by the claimant, but he did not tell the tribunal that he could not attend, ask for a postponement, or explain any technical or practical difficulties in participating.
The tribunal clerk attempted to contact the claimant at the start of the 2pm hearing. By 2.20pm the claimant had not made contact, joined the hearing, or appeared to try to participate. In those circumstances, the tribunal found that he had not presented his case or adduced evidence in support of the claim.
Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan noted that the claimant may have accepted the respondent’s response and decided not to pursue the claim, but the tribunal did not hear the respondent’s evidence or determine the merits. Instead, the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not describe the substantive claim type, but the GOV.UK listing for this case identifies it as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal struck the claim out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) ETs (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regs 2013
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.