Case 2302542/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Mr A Boyce, Director — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302542/2022
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The claimant, Ms S Abbott, had presented a claim on 29 July 2022 seeking £731 said to be arrears of pay. She did not attend the hearing, after asking for an adjournment because she said she was only available until 12 pm; that request was refused and the hearing proceeded in her absence. Neither party had provided witness statements or documents before the hearing.
The respondent was represented by Mr A Boyce, its director. His evidence was that the claimant was a contractor rather than an employee, that she had left the site after two weeks without completing the work, and that she had been paid for the hours she worked. The tribunal noted that no copy of the alleged contract was produced, and there was no evidence from the claimant beyond the brief assertions in the claim form, which also stated that she had received £850 for 50 hours worked and was owed pay for a further 43 hours.
In the absence of evidence showing that the claimed sum was properly payable, the tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.