Case 2602218/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend v Mr M Ibrahim — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602218/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Victoria Butler sat alone at Nottingham on 3 January 2020. The tribunal recorded that Swirls Desserts Limited had been dissolved. The claimant did not attend the final hearing and therefore did not have the opportunity to explain whether she would apply to have the company restored to the Register of Companies.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why the claim against Swirls Desserts Limited should not be struck out, and that claim was struck out. The separate claim against Mr M Ibrahim was dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer and the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction in relation to him. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against Swirls Desserts Limited. The tribunal said the company had been dissolved, the claimant did not attend the final hearing on 3 January 2020, and no acceptable reason was given why the claim should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against Mr M Ibrahim. The tribunal said he was not the claimant's employer and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. | 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.