Case 1601150/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Tam v BE Foods Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601150/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Tam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal's judgment was that the respondent's response was struck out. By a letter dated 26 April 2023, the Tribunal had given the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the response should not be struck out because it had not complied with the Tribunal's order and the claim had not been actively pursued.
The respondent failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The judgment therefore struck out the response. It does not determine the merits of the underlying breach of contract, unfair dismissal, or unlawful deduction from wages claims.
The Tribunal recorded that the respondent would still be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The judgment was sent to the parties on 12 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the respondent's response only; it did not determine the merits of the breach of contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the respondent's response only; it did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the respondent's response only; it did not determine the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.