Case 2601729/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ringham v Alaskan Ice Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601729/2021
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Varnam Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ringham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr N Ringham's claim against Alaskan Ice Ltd at Nottingham on 3 December 2021. The matter was listed for a final hearing of a claim of unlawful deductions from wages, and the tribunal recorded that both parties had been notified of the hearing by notice dated 17 August 2021. The notice directed attendance by 1.30pm, but neither party complied, and neither appeared by the time the judgment was written.
The tribunal office attempted to telephone both parties shortly after 2pm, but there was no response. The judge noted that there was no other information explaining the absence of either party. On the papers, there was a dispute of fact between the parties, and the tribunal concluded that the claimant could not discharge the burden of proof without attending to give evidence. The claim was therefore dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was listed for a final hearing on 3 December 2021, but neither party attended. The tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend to give evidence and therefore could not discharge the burden of proof in a disputed case. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- burden of proof
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.