Case 3200142/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Belsey v Mr Tony Giles and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200142/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Belsey
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by video at the East London Hearing Centre on 3 February 2022 before Employment Judge Reid. The Claimant did not attend. Both respondents were represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claims against both respondents in their entirety under Rule 47 of the Tribunal Rules 2013. The stated reason was the Claimant's failure to attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses all claims in their entirety under Rule 47 because the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. The specific claim types are inferred from the listing categories rather than separately discussed in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses all claims in their entirety under Rule 47 because the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. The specific claim types are inferred from the listing categories rather than separately discussed in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses all claims in their entirety under Rule 47 because the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. The specific claim types are inferred from the listing categories rather than separately discussed in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Tribunal Rules 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.