Case 2201515/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Neither present nor represented v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201515/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Neither present nor represented
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 September 2019 at London Central, Employment Judge Glennie dismissed the claim because the claimant did not attend the hearing. The clerk telephoned the claimant and established that he was in Scotland; he said the respondent had threatened him with costs.
The tribunal explained that rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure gave it a discretion to dismiss the claim, proceed in the claimant's absence, or adjourn. It chose dismissal because the respondent had put forward an arguable defence, the claimant was not present to prove his case, and from what he said it did not appear that he intended to take the claim further or attend on a future date.
The tribunal also noted that the amount in issue was £2,051.00 and that, in the absence of any good reason to adjourn, it would be disproportionate to do so. The reasons do not determine the substantive merits of any wages or working time complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons dismiss the claim under rule 47 without separate merits findings on this head; the claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The reasons dismiss the claim under rule 47 without separate merits findings on this head; the claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
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.