Case 2402135/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Dickinson v CRMERP Limited t/a 360 QA — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402135/2024
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Dickinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool Employment Tribunal by CVP on 31 July 2024 before Employment Judge M Butler. The claimant, Miss S Dickinson, did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr S Nahajec, Director and owner of CRMERP Limited t/a 360 QA.
The tribunal delayed the start of the hearing, made enquiries about the claimant's non-attendance, and took account of the information available on the tribunal file. Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety because of the claimant's non-attendance at the hearing.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard post-hearing note. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the underlying claim, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not state the substantive legal basis of the claim in the text provided; the GOV.UK listing categorises the case as unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety because the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the ET (Constitution & 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.