Case 2203148/2019 · Employment Tribunal
not present For the v Cergis Software Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203148/2019
- Decision date
- 2 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
not present For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by video on 30 October 2020 before Employment Judge P Klimov. Neither party attended or was represented. The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not answer two telephone calls, his number was unobtainable, and he did not respond to the email containing joining instructions. The judge concluded that there was no good reason for the claimant’s absence.
The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. The judge also found, on an assessment of the pleadings and on a balance of probabilities, that the claim failed because the respondent had shown why the sums claimed were not payable. The respondent had applied for a postponement for medical reasons, but in light of the dismissal that evidence was no longer required. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismissed the claim as a whole under rule 47 for non-attendance and also on the merits; it did not give a separate finding for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismissed the claim as a whole under rule 47 for non-attendance and also on the merits; it did not give a separate finding for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismissed the claim as a whole under rule 47 for non-attendance and also on the merits; it did not give a separate finding for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- balance of probabilities
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.