Case 3201310/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kumar v First Eagle Security — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201310/2020
- Decision date
- 19 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 19 August 2020 by telephone before Employment Judge Russell. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended. The judgment records that, on 3 July 2020, the Tribunal had required the claimant to provide a written list of all sums said to be owed, with dates and amounts.
The claimant did not provide that list and did not provide any documents in support of the sums claimed. On that basis, and in the absence of attendance by either party, the Tribunal dismissed the claims.
The judgment does not set out separate findings on liability for individual heads of claim or any monetary award. It simply records that all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed all claims after neither party attended, the claimant had not provided the requested written list of sums said to be owed with dates and amounts, and no supporting documents were provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal dismissed all claims after neither party attended, the claimant had not provided the requested written list of sums said to be owed with dates and amounts, and no supporting documents were provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.