Case 2302156/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Kybett v Safi Hussain — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302156/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Braganza Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Kybett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr K Kybett, brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages against the respondent, Safi Hussain. The hearing was listed for 18 May 2021 at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Braganza.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and had not written to seek an adjournment or explain any inability to attend. The tribunal recorded that both parties had been emailed the hearing notice and login details on 12 May 2021.
The tribunal made reasonably practicable enquiries on the morning of the hearing to confirm whether the claimant would attend. The clerk telephoned the claimant four times on the mobile number in the ET1 and also emailed him, but there was no response.
In those circumstances, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not appear at the hearing on 18 May 2021 and did not respond to the tribunal's telephone calls or email. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- 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.