Case 2406935/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Bates v Advanced Medical Solutions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406935/2023
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Bates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Bates brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages under sections 23 and 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against Advanced Medical Solutions Limited. At the hearing in Liverpool on 6 November 2023 before Employment Judge Aspinall, the Tribunal struck out the complaint of its own volition under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment records that the respondent had not filed a response in time and had sent a late response without an application for an extension of time. The late response was not accepted. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The written record states that this brought the claimant's claim to an end.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under sections 23 and 13 ERA 1996 was struck out of the Tribunal's own volition under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent filed no timely response; a late response without an application for extension of time was not accepted. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- sections 23 and 13 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.