Case 2501020/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Parodi v Italian Furniture Products Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501020/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Parodi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle on 24 February 2025 before Employment Judge Aspden. The claimant, Ms Parodi, did not attend and was not represented; the respondent attended through Mr Twelftree.
The written judgment records only that, because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing, her claims were dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules. The judgment does not record any findings on the merits of the pleaded complaints.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual tribunal procedure.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.