Case 2406734/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Not present or represented — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406734/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996, relating to a Manchester bonus and shift allowances. The respondent denied liability and said the claim was out of time.
On the morning of the listed two-day merits hearing, the tribunal received an email from the claimant's representative saying the parties had agreed in principle on settlement and seeking a 21-day adjournment. Employment Judge Tobin refused the adjournment because no full settlement had been agreed or concluded, and no settlement had been reported to ACAS.
Neither party nor their representatives attended the hearing. After enquiries about their absence, the tribunal decided it was appropriate to proceed in their absence under the overriding objective and rule 47. The judge concluded that the claimant bore carriage of the proceedings and the burden of proof, and dismissed the claim under rule 47.
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 because neither party attended the listed full merits hearing; the tribunal did not determine the underlying wage deduction merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 2 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.