Case 2302578/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R D’Souza v GV Group (Gate Ventures) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302578/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R D’Souza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim concerned a complaint of unlawful deduction of wages by Mr R D’Souza against GV Group (Gates Ventures) Limited. The final hearing was listed for 9 June 2021 before Employment Judge Abbott sitting alone. The claimant did not attend, and the tribunal clerk attempted to contact him by telephone and email without success.
The respondent said it had also had no response from the claimant, including to an email from Mr Weeks dated 24 May 2021 seeking further information, and that it had not been able to engage him through ACAS. The tribunal checked its own file and found no contact from the claimant since the claim had been presented.
Applying rule 47 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013, and having made enquiries about the claimant's absence, the tribunal concluded that the appropriate course was to dismiss the claim. The judgment records that the claim was dismissed and gives the claimant 14 days to seek reconsideration if he wished to explain his failure to attend or prepare for the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant did not attend the final hearing and had not responded to the tribunal or the respondent; the claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the ET 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.