Case 1800750/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lucy George v North Bay Waterpark Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) AT A HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800750/2024
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lucy George
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a hearing in Leeds by CVP on 2 August 2024 before Employment Judge Lancaster. The Claimant, Miss Lucy George, did not attend. The Respondent entered no appearance and also did not attend.
The tribunal recorded that notice of the final hearing had been sent to the Claimant by email on 10 May 2024. A further tribunal letter dated 17 July 2024, also sent by email, confirmed the hearing date for the purpose of determining whether time should be extended to allow the claim to proceed. Joining details for the CVP hearing were sent by email on 1 August 2024. The Claimant made no contact with the tribunal in response and had not provided a telephone contact number.
The judgment states that the claim was dismissed upon the Claimant having failed to attend, under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment does not contain any findings on the substance of the underlying unlawful deduction from wages claim and records no monetary award.
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 failed to attend the final hearing. The judgment does not record any substantive merits findings on the wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.