Case 2302863/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Plange v Symbol Family Support Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302863/2019
- Decision date
- 16 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Plange
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by CVP on 16 April 2021 before Employment Judge Tsamados sitting alone. The Claimant did not attend, was not represented, and did not respond to repeated email and telephone attempts by the Clerk or otherwise contact the Tribunal to explain her absence. Applying Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Judge decided that it was appropriate to dismiss the Claimant's claim.
On the Respondent's counterclaim, the Claimant had not presented a response despite service by letter dated 14 January 2020. Having considered the documents before the Tribunal, the Judge found the counterclaim made out and awarded the Respondent damages of £438.01 payable by the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying claim type is not restated in the judgment text; classified from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's counterclaim was awarded as damages; the judgment does not specify the underlying cause of action. | Upheld | — | £438 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £438
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to 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.