Case 2403585/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Basiryazdi Ms M Donetto v Pierpoint International (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403585/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Basiryazdi Ms M Donetto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims at Manchester by CVP on 15 October 2024 before Employment Judge Phil Allen. Miss Basiryazdi did not attend the final hearing and no reason for her non-attendance was provided or established after practicable enquiries. Applying rule 47 and the overriding objective, the tribunal dismissed her claim, taking account of the limited value of the claim and the need to save further expense.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed under rule 47 because Miss Basiryazdi did not attend the final hearing and no reason for non-attendance was established. The reasons do not separately determine the underlying substantive complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Well-founded under rule 21. The deduction was found to cover the period 29 April to 31 May 2024, and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £4,166.67. | Upheld | — | £4,167 |
| Breach of contract | Well-founded under rule 21 in relation to expenses. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,043 as damages. | Upheld | — | £1,043 |
| Redundancy | Struck out because neither claimant had two years' service, which the tribunal said was required by section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge also noted that Miss Basiryazdi's redundancy claim would have been struck out if it had not been dismissed for non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,210
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 47
- rule 21
- overriding objective
- section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.