Case 2402926/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McLean v XS Recruitment Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402926/2021
- Decision date
- 22 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McLean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal listed the matter for a final hearing on the claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages on 9 July 2021 at Manchester. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent attended through Miss J Sanderson Brown, HR, and stated that it had had no communication with the claimant, who was no longer employed by the respondent.
The tribunal had previously sent the claimant a letter by email on 25 June 2021 after the respondent said he had been overpaid, and sent a further letter on 8 July 2021 asking whether the hearing was to go ahead. No response was received to either letter, and the claimant had also not taken the steps ordered in the Notice of Claim for preparation for the hearing. Having made enquiries with the respondent and checked for any communication from the claimant, and having no explanation for his absence or failure to participate, Employment Judge Holmes dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the 2013 Rules of Procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the claimant did not attend the final hearing and had not responded to the tribunal's letters of 25 June 2021 and 8 July 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals 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.