Case 2206155/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Coffee Fortuna Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206155/2022
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Fredericks sat at London Central by CVP on 13 January 2023. The claimant, Mr M Gavioli, did not attend, and the respondent also did not attend. The judgment records that the case was dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to attend the full merits hearing.
In deciding to dismiss the claim, the tribunal noted that notice of the hearing had been sent to the email address on the claim form, no reason had been provided for the claimant’s absence, and a telephone call to the number on the claim form rang through to voicemail. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not provided information about the respondent when requested by Regional Employment Judge Freer on 12 October 2022 or by Employment Judge Khan on 24 October 2022, that a previous hearing had been postponed because of that missing information, and that there had been no contact from the claimant since the claim was filed. The tribunal waited for the claimant, but he did not attend or respond, and the judge concluded that dismissal was in accordance with the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the substantive allegation beyond the case listing; it records dismissal under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the full merits hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.