Case 2413176/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Szejmo v Rateable Value Experts — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413176/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Szejmo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs I Szejmo's claim against Rateable Value Experts was listed for a video hearing on 12 April 2024, but the claimant did not attend. Employment Judge M Butler recorded that, having regard to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, having made enquiries about the non-attendance, and having taken account of the information available, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claim. It is therefore a procedural dismissal based on non-attendance rather than a determination of the factual or legal issues raised in the claim itself.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. 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 does not describe the substantive claim particulars. It records that, having made enquiries into the claimant's non-attendance and taken account of the information available, the claim was dismissed in its entirety under rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the ET (Constitution & 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.