Case 2404637/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Roberts v Mr M Hill — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404637/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ganner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Roberts brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and unfair dismissal against Mr M Hill. The case was heard at Liverpool by CVP on 28 September 2022 before Employment Judge Ganner sitting alone. Neither party attended the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because of the non-attendance of the parties. It struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because neither party attended the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.