Case 1802615/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Denman v HPM Drinks Limited HELD by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) at Leeds — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802615/2023
- Decision date
- 26 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Denman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Denman brought a claim against HPM Drinks Limited seeking £423.10 for notice pay, £626.19 for holiday pay, and £15.88 for an alleged unauthorised deduction of wages relating to pension contributions. The respondent did not file a response, did not attend the hearing, and was not represented. The claimant said she had been made redundant on 1 August 2022 and did not present her claim until 6 May 2023.
On 2 June 2023 Employment Judge Rogerson reviewed the file and the claimant was written to about the time limit for presenting the claim. The letter said the claim should have been brought by the end of November 2022 and that, if the claimant wished to continue, a hearing would be listed to decide whether the claim was in time. The tribunal treated the claimant's attendance on 10 July 2023 as an indication that she wished to continue.
At the hearing the tribunal asked the claimant why the claim had been brought out of time, but she closed her camera, moved away from the CVP link, and did not return. The clerk tried to telephone her twice without success. Employment Judge Shulman treated the claimant's conduct as abandoning the claim and dismissed it. The tribunal made no substantive findings on the notice pay, holiday pay, or pension deduction complaints and recorded no award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim as presented comprised no notice pay (£423.10), no holiday pay (£626.19), and an alleged unauthorised deduction of wages relating to no pension (£15.88). The tribunal dismissed the claim after the claimant abandoned the hearing; it made no findings on the merits or timeliness. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.