Case 2216404/2023 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the First v Muse London FAO P Hely — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216404/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje Between
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the hearing on 5 March 2024. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not given prior notice that she would be unavailable, and when the clerk telephoned her she said she was unable to take annual leave in order to attend.
The claim form stated that the claimant had been employed from 3 January 2020 to 10 August 2023 on a net salary of £1,112 per month. It alleged that she had been made redundant on 8 August and was due to be paid on 25 August and 25 September, that August pay had been received, and that September pay had not been received, with more than £2,000 said to be outstanding.
The respondent had sent the tribunal and the claimant transfer confirmations showing payments of £157.44 in respect of an expenses claim and £2,250.24 in respect of "Sept payroll". The tribunal said that this documentation indicated the claim may have been satisfied, but it considered it appropriate to give the claimant an opportunity to confirm whether that was the case.
The judgment therefore did not resolve liability for redundancy, unfair dismissal, breach of contract, or unlawful deduction of wages. Instead, it ordered the claimant to email the tribunal and respondent by 4.00pm on 2 April 2024 confirming whether she wished to pursue the claim, with the claim to be struck out without further order if she did not do so.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal did not determine liability on the merits. It made a conditional order requiring the claimant to confirm by 2 April 2024 whether she wished to pursue the claim, failing which it would be struck out without further order. | Other | — | — |
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.