Case 2500740/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Exall v Ryan Dearlove — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500740/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Exall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim form on 13 April 2023. He pleaded an unlawful deduction of wages claim in the sum of £189 and also sought £150 in respect of damage to a knife. The respondent did not return a response to the claim form. The tribunal issued a notice that a judgment might be entered under rule 21 if no response was filed.
The final hearing was listed for 3 July 2023. Although a CVP link was sent to the parties, neither appeared. The clerk attempted to contact the claimant three times by telephone, but the calls were cut off and no message could be left.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Employment Judge decided that there was not enough information on the claim form to issue judgment against the respondent. Because the claimant had not attended and had not provided supporting information in response to the tribunal's orders, the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim pleaded at £189. The proceedings were dismissed under Rule 47 before any merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim pleaded for £150 in respect of damage to a knife. The judgment does not assign a specific legal label to this head of claim, so it is classified as other. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal 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.