Case 1805003/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Ostler v Brendan Leahy and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805003/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss N Ostler
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Ostler notified the Tribunal by email dated 30 March 2023 that she would not attend the hearing and asked for the claim to be determined in her absence. The respondents did not attend at 10.00am. The Tribunal telephoned the first respondent, who was also the director of the second respondent, and provided the video link and a telephone number for joining the hearing, but he did not join the proceedings.
The Tribunal therefore proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and determined the claim in the claimant's absence. The written judgment does not set out the substantive facts or legal reasoning on the underlying claims.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims against both respondents. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the substantive particulars of this claim. The Tribunal determined the case in the claimant's absence and dismissed the claim against both respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out the substantive particulars of this claim. The Tribunal determined the case in the claimant's absence and dismissed the claim against both respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.