Case 2414546/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Cliffe v Steven Downing and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2414546/2021
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms L Cliffe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Liverpool (CVP) on 21 February 2023 before Employment Judge Ainscough sitting alone. The claimant, Ms L Cliffe, and the respondents were not in attendance.
The tribunal recorded that the claims were for sex discrimination under section 120 of the Equality Act 2010 and unlawful deduction from wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It dismissed both claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because of the claimant's non-attendance at the preliminary hearing.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record. No substantive findings on the merits of either claim, and no monetary award, are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing; no merits determination is recorded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing; no merits determination is recorded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 120 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.