Case 2410902/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Scott v Prosurance Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410902/2019
- Decision date
- 13 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal convened a final hearing in relation to the claimant's unpaid wages claim. The respondent did not submit a response. Before the hearing, the tribunal sought further information from the claimant after he replied on 31 October 2019 with a payslip and again on 21 November 2019, but the information still did not clarify the claim on the material before the tribunal.
When the case was called on 10 December 2019, the claimant did not attend and no message or explanation was received. The Employment Judge considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and indicated that, in the absence of an explanation, the tribunal would exercise its powers under that rule while giving the claimant until 18 December 2019 to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed, including by explaining why he had not attended the hearing. No substantive findings on entitlement to unpaid wages or any monetary award were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The source heading states 'On: 10 December 2018', but the reasons and sent date refer to December 2019; this appears to be a typographical inconsistency. The operative wording is conditional: the claimant was given until 18 December 2019 to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed pursuant to rule 47, including by explaining his non-attendance. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the 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.