Case 3200535/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Vidhya Bokka v KK Security & FM Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200535/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Vidhya Bokka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Preliminary Hearing on 19 May 2022, before Employment Judge Sugarman at East London Hearing Centre, the claimant, Miss Vidhya Bokka, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, KK Security & FM Ltd, was represented by Mr Khan, solicitor. The judgment records that the claimant failed to attend or be represented and did not provide any explanation for her non-attendance.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims under Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim or any remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the extracted text; the claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category provided in the case context. The tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend or provide any explanation for non-attendance at the Preliminary Hearing on 19 May 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.