Case 2204794/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Andreea Calcea v Ginseng Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204794/2021
- Decision date
- 6 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andreea Calcea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a claim by Andreea Calcea against Ginseng Ltd for unauthorised deduction of wages. The case was listed for hearing on 7 January 2022 at London Central by remote CVP hearing. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent was represented by its director, Li Hua Li.
The tribunal recorded that staff telephoned the claimant several times on the day of the hearing, left a message, and emailed her with a reminder and the joining instructions. It also noted that there had been no contact from the claimant since the ET1 was issued on 31 August 2021. The tribunal referred to the original notice of hearing, an amended notice sent on 5 January 2022, and the instructions emailed on 6 January 2022. In the absence of any explanation for non-attendance, the tribunal considered it just to dismiss the claim pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant later emailed the tribunal at 13:39 saying she was unable to attend, but by then the hearing had already concluded. No liability findings on the wage deduction issue and no monetary remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not respond to calls or emails before the tribunal proceeded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.