Case 1804648/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Pearls Tearoom & Patisserie Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804648/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Appearance
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint for holiday pay against her former employer, Pearls Tearoom & Patisserie Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation). She said she had worked as a waitress from 18 June 2018 to 30 June 2019 and had not been paid any holiday pay at the end of her employment.
The tribunal noted that the respondent had gone into creditors voluntary liquidation and that the liquidators said employee claims would be dealt with by the Redundancy Payments Service. The tribunal then wrote to the parties, stating that the claim would proceed unless the claimant confirmed she had been paid by RPS, and separately asked her to provide details of wages and holiday pay so that any award could be calculated.
The claimant did not provide any details by the deadline or at all, did not attend the hearing, and did not contact the tribunal to explain her absence. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded it was proportionate and in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint was dismissed after the claimant did not provide the requested wage and holiday-pay details and did not attend the listed hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
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.