Case 2414946/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Murray v Loving Foods Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2414946/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing on 14 February 2020 concerned the claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages. The claimant did not attend, while the respondent attended through its director, Mr A Goldwater. The tribunal checked for any communication from the claimant, made enquiries about his absence, and found no explanation or participation in preparation for the hearing.
The Employment Judge considered rule 47 of the 2013 Rules of Procedure and dismissed the claim. The reasons record that the respondent had made a payment to the claimant of what it agreed was due, but that the claimant was not present to challenge that calculation. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had sought an additional £500 as compensation for late payment, but stated that it had no power to make such an award. It said it could only have awarded any proven underpayments, and consequential losses such as bank charges or late payment fees if those had been proved.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Final hearing listed for the claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages. The claimant did not attend; the tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the 2013 Rules of Procedure after making enquiries and receiving no explanation for the absence. The tribunal noted the respondent had made a payment it said was due and that the claimant had sought an additional £500 as compensation for late payment, but the tribunal said it had no power to award that sum. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the 2013 Rules of Procedure
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.