Case 2204837/2022 · Employment Tribunal
not present or represented For the v Ms Springer (solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204837/2022
- Decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningListed for a video hearing on 20 October 2022, the respondent attended through Ms Springer but the claimant did not join. The tribunal clerk tried several emails and telephone calls, including a further warning at 10:15am that the hearing would proceed in the claimant's absence if he did not join by 10:30am. The claimant did not respond, and the hearing went ahead with only the respondent present.
The tribunal decided not to determine the underlying claims on the merits in the claimant's absence because the ET1 was unclear. It said the pleading stated that the claimant had not been paid correctly because of the wrong rate and that his contract was 'counterfeited', but it gave no further particulars. The respondent denied making any unlawful deduction from wages and said it needed further particulars to respond.
The tribunal also declined to postpone the hearing. It noted that the claimant had ample notice, had not asked for an adjournment, and had not engaged with the Tribunal despite repeated attempts to contact him. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure and the overriding objective, Employment Judge Klimov dismissed the claim on 20 October 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The ET1 said the claimant had not been paid correctly because of the wrong rate, but gave no further particulars. The tribunal did not determine the claim on the merits because the claimant did not attend and the issues remained unclear. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The ET1 stated that the claimant's contract was 'counterfeited' but provided no particulars. The tribunal did not determine the claim on the merits because the claimant did not attend and the issues remained unclear. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 non-attendance
- 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.