Case 2500108/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss RRB Salazar v Dopio Malto Restaurant — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500108/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss RRB Salazar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal listed the case for a final hearing on 3 September 2024. A notice of hearing was sent to the claimant on 17 July 2024, and an email with the video hearing link and joining instructions was sent on 2 September 2024. The claimant did not log into the hearing at 10:00, and the tribunal clerk was unable to contact her because no telephone number had been provided.
By 12:00 on 3 September 2024 the claimant still had not attended or contacted the tribunal. The judgment states that the tribunal had made all practicable enquiries to find out the reason for her absence. The tribunal therefore dismissed all of the claimant's claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because she failed to attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals 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.