Case 3200239/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Mahomed v Birkin Cleaning Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200239/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Mahomed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final hearing listed to determine the claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages. The claimant did not attend. At 9.59am on the hearing date she emailed asking for the hearing to be cancelled, and the respondent said it had received an earlier email the previous week saying she was withdrawing her claim, although the claimant did not confirm that to the tribunal.
The tribunal noted the respondent had complied with case management directions and had produced witness statements and documents, while the claimant had not complied, including failing to provide a witness statement or to respond to an order requiring her to write to the tribunal by 3 June 2024. Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the overriding objective, the Employment Judge decided to continue in the claimant's absence.
Having considered the documents, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was not owed any outstanding wages. The judgment states that the claim of unlawful deductions from wages was not well founded and was dismissed, and that the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the claim after the claimant did not attend the final hearing. It accepted the respondent's documents and found that the claimant was not owed any outstanding wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.