Case 2301733/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adam Chresta v United Hygiene Solutions Limited Heard: At London South – In person — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301733/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adam Chresta
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 23 November 2022 before Employment Judge Cox. The claimant did not attend, while the respondent was represented by Ms Sidossis, Counsel. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The written record does not set out any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying dispute, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note at the end of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not itemise this claim, but the gov.uk listing categories identify breach of contract as one of the claimant's claims. It was dismissed upon non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not itemise this claim, but the gov.uk listing categories identify unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claimant's claims. It was dismissed upon non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.