Case 1806347/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Kazmi Mr D Vlachantonis Miss A Khan v Avalanche Home Improvements Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1806347/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Kazmi Mr D Vlachantonis Miss A Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for hearing in Leeds by CVP on 8 January 2025 before Employment Judge Maidment. None of the claimants attended and no appearance was entered for the respondent. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
In the reasons, the tribunal recorded that the respondent had not filed a response, but judgment could not previously have been entered for the claimants under Rule 22 because they had not particularised the amounts claimed by each claimant as unpaid wages and damages for breach of contract. The tribunal had written on 19 December 2024 asking for that information, but no claimant responded. Miss Kazmi emailed shortly before the hearing saying she was unwell and could not attend, but there had been no postponement application or grant. The tribunal said the failure to attend and to comply with directions showed disregard for the seriousness of the proceedings, and it was not in accordance with the overriding objective to seek an explanation with a view to relisting the matter.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 when the claimants failed to attend the hearing. The tribunal had previously asked for particulars showing the basis of the amounts claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 when the claimants failed to attend the hearing. The tribunal noted that it had not been possible to enter judgment earlier because the claims had not been particularised with the basis of calculation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- 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.