Case 1601256/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Hearne v Mr S Lewis — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601256/2023
- Decision date
- 2 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Hearne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case concerned Miss S Hearne’s claim of unauthorised deductions from wages against Mr S Lewis. A hearing was listed for 23 October 2023 at Cardiff by video. The claimant did not attend at 10:00am or by the time the hearing was ended at 10:32am, and was not represented. The respondent attended in person.
Employment Judge S Jenkins considered the position under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, which allows the tribunal to dismiss a claim or proceed in a party’s absence after considering any available information about the reason for that absence. The claimant had not provided a telephone number, but had given an email address, so the tribunal clerk emailed her to ask whether she would be joining the hearing. No response was received, and the file showed that she had not replied to several recent tribunal communications.
In those circumstances, the tribunal exercised its power under Rule 47 to dismiss the claim. No substantive findings on the underlying wages issue or any monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not respond to the tribunal's email enquiry or earlier communications. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.