Case 1601568/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Singh v H E Outsource Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601568/2021
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Singh presented a claim on 30 September 2021 for unauthorised deduction from wages against H E Outsource Services Ltd. The claim was served twice and the tribunal gave the claimant two opportunities to provide information so that a Rule 21 judgment could be considered, but he did not reply. The respondent entered a response out of time on 16 March 2022, but no decision had been made on whether to accept it out of time.
The hearing took place in Cardiff on 12 April 2022 before Employment Judge S Moore. Neither party attended, and the clerk attempted to contact them. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to provide any evidence in support of the claim despite being ordered to do so on two occasions and had also failed to attend the hearing. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal dismissed the claim rather than determine it on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for unauthorised deduction from wages. It was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to provide evidence despite two orders, and neither party attended the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.