Case 2401633/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Cullerton v Winner Recruitment (Birmingham) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401633/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Cullerton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Manchester by CVP on 5 January 2022, neither party attended. The tribunal recorded that the notice of hearing had been sent to the correct contact details supplied by the parties, the claimant had provided no telephone number on the claim form, could not be contacted by telephone, and did not attend at any point in the hearing window despite an additional email invitation to join. No reason for the non-attendance had been provided in advance, and the claimant had not contacted the tribunal since presenting the claim.
The tribunal also noted that the hearing had been listed after a previous hearing was postponed because of lack of engagement with the claim by both parties. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Employment Judge Fredericks dismissed the claim for non-attendance. The judgment contains no substantive findings on liability and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance of the parties; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim. | 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.