Case 3202400/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Andrea Bereczne Bacso v Shine Line Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202400/2023
- Decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Andrea Bereczne Bacso
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for arrears of pay, stating in the ET1 that she was not paid for jobs she went to do for the respondent. The respondent resisted the claim, and the final hearing was listed by CVP for 10 April 2024.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The Tribunal recorded attempts to contact the claimant and her representative, considered the available information about the absence, and dismissed the claim under Rule 47 on the respondent's application because it was not appropriate to hear the claim in the claimant's absence.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was described as arrears of pay for jobs the claimant said she did as a self-employed person. It was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend or provide a satisfactory explanation for non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.