Case 2410421/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Hardy v Safeline Limited and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410421/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hill REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss G Hardy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss G Hardy presented a claim for unlawful deduction of wages on 31 July 2019, initially against Safeline Limited. No response was entered. At a hearing on 22 October 2019, Employment Judge Holmes postponed the case to 17 December 2019, permitted the addition of True Financial Services Limited and James Paul Turley as respondents, and ordered service of the claim and further case preparation, including a schedule of loss and witness statement by 5 November 2019.
The tribunal recorded that the claim form and the postponement orders were served on 12 November 2019, but no response form was filed by any respondent and the claimant did not provide the schedule of loss or witness statement ordered. On the day of the hearing the tribunal asked the clerk to telephone the parties, but the calls were unanswered and the tribunal waited until 10.30 am. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and having considered the material on file and the absence of any explanation for non-attendance, the tribunal dismissed the claim for unlawful deduction of wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No response form was entered by any respondent, and the claim was dismissed after non-attendance at the hearing under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.