Case 2411067/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Amao v Lolockul Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411067/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Amao
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Amao brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Lolockul Ltd. The respondent’s response referred to illegality, including the claimant’s alleged inability to work in the UK and the non-provision of documents said to evidence his ability to do so, but the tribunal did not reach the merits of that dispute.
The final hearing took place on 21 February 2020, but neither party attended. The claimant had been notified of the hearing date by letter on 19 December 2019. He asked for a postponement by email the day before the hearing, saying he needed to finalise briefing counsel, but that application was refused.
When the claimant did not attend and gave no reason beyond the refused postponement request, Employment Judge Phil Allen dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment states that no good reason had been provided for the non-attendance and that, in accordance with the overriding objective, the claim should be dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the final hearing; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- overriding objective
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.