Case 3200992/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Li v BITUMBA-DONZET, Janine — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200992/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shergill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Li
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed she was owed wages totalling £1,242. Neither party attended the virtual final hearing, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had been duly notified and that practicable enquiries had been made to contact her.
The Tribunal noted that the respondent had not filed an ET3, but it was not satisfied that the claim had been properly served because the ACAS certificate named JAOLA VAULT LTD while the proceedings were issued against a named individual only. It also noted that there were no documents supporting the alleged entitlement to the sum claimed.
Employment Judge Shergill considered strike out under rule 37(1)(c), but decided it was more appropriate to dismiss the claim under rule 47 for non-attendance. The Tribunal found it would be disproportionate to adjourn of its own motion in circumstances where the claimant had not answered her phone or explained her absence.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages of £1,242 was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing. The Tribunal also noted limited evidence and doubts about service on the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- 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.