Case 3200229/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Coffey v Umbroker — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200229/2022
- Decision date
- 21 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muir Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Coffey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Coffey presented her claim on 28 January 2022 and said she had been employed by Umbroker from 1 November 2021 until 1 January 2022. The claim form referred to unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, unpaid wages, and non-payment of notice. On 16 March 2022 the tribunal issued a strike-out warning on the unfair dismissal complaint and noted that redundancy pay normally requires two years' continuous employment, but that this did not affect the complaints about notice pay and unpaid wages.
A hearing was listed for 18 August 2022. Neither party attended or attempted to join the telephone hearing. The tribunal clerk later contacted the Claimant, who said she no longer wished to pursue the claim. The tribunal also noted that the communications had been sent to the email and postal addresses provided and that it had not received any further material from either side after the claim form.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, and having regard to Roberts v Skelmersdale College [2004] IRLR 69, the Employment Judge considered the available information, the absence of evidence, the Claimant's failure to engage, and the fact that dismissal under Rule 47 is a severe sanction. The judge decided not to adjourn or make further case management orders and dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because the Claimant had not attended and was not represented at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the Claimant failed to attend the final hearing. The tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal had previously warned that a redundancy payment claim requires two years' continuous employment. The claim was ultimately dismissed under Rule 47 without a merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This relates to the complaint about unpaid notice pay. It was dismissed under Rule 47 without the tribunal deciding the substance of the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This relates to the complaint about unpaid wages. It was dismissed under Rule 47 without the tribunal deciding the substance of the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Roberts v Skelmersdale College [2004] IRLR 69
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.