Case 2416091/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Rowlandson v Elite Linen Textile Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416091/2020
- Decision date
- 7 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Rowlandson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal listed the final hearing of Mr K Rowlandson's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages for 12 March 2021 at Manchester by CVP. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. Elite Linen Textile Services Limited attended through its director, Mr Bradley.
The tribunal stood the case down to make enquiries. A message was left on the claimant's mobile telephone, but he did not respond. By 10.30 a.m. nothing had been heard from him, and the Employment Judge also checked for any communication from the claimant with the tribunal administration. None had been received.
Mr Bradley invited the tribunal to dismiss the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal recorded that, having considered the information available and the practicable enquiries made about the claimant's absence, and having no explanation from the claimant for his absence or lack of participation in preparation for the hearing, it dismissed the claim pursuant to rule 47. 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 sole complaint was unlawful deductions from wages. It was dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the final hearing, did not respond to a message left on his mobile, and gave no explanation for his absence or for not participating in preparation for the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Tribunal's 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.