Case 2409177/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hamilton v DMT Time Logistics Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409177/2020
- Decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely at Manchester on 29 June 2021 before Employment Judge Whittaker. The claimant did not attend. The respondent, represented by Mr Zahman and Mr Mohammed, said that the correct respondent name was DMT Time Logistics Limited, and the tribunal amended the title accordingly.
The only information the claimant had provided before the hearing was that he was owed £588. He did not reply to the tribunal's letter of 26 February 2021 asking for information and calculations, despite being told to do so by 5 March 2021. He also did not provide the documentation or witness statement requested in the tribunal's later letter of 27 April 2021, and no communications were received from him to explain his absence from the hearing.
On the material before it, the tribunal found there was a complete absence of information explaining how the alleged £588 was calculated or why it was owed by the respondent. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had repeatedly failed to co-operate so that the claim could be properly heard, and that there was no evidence at all enabling it to consider the claim.
In those circumstances, the tribunal dismissed the claim for unpaid wages. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as a claim for unpaid wages/loss of earnings. The claimant said only that he was owed £588, but he provided no explanation, calculation, documentation, or other evidence to show how the sum was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.