Not present or represented For the v Mr S Adam (manager) — 2023

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim concerned an alleged unauthorised deduction of wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or breach of contract in relation to wages and travel expenses. The respondent denied liability, saying the claimant left work partway through a shift and that it was entitled to withhold money because the claimant had signed a letter authorising retention in those circumstances.

The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal checked that notice of the hearing and the CVP link had been sent to the correct address, noted that no adjournment had been requested, and considered information available about the absence. It decided there was no good reason to adjourn and that it was appropriate to proceed in the claimant's absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2.

The tribunal dismissed the claim without determining the substantive liability issues. It noted that the respondent had attended, that the parties knew or should have known the importance of attendance, and that if the hearing were adjourned the position would likely be unchanged. In considering proportionality, the tribunal said the claimant had had the opportunity to pursue the matter and had not taken it.

The reasons also record that the claimant appeared to have received some money and that the tribunal understood she had taken a decision not to pursue the remainder of the claim. The final order was that the claimant's claim was dismissed pursuant to rule 47.