Case 3203191/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Wells v Tower Hamlets Community Housing — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203191/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Wells brought claims against Tower Hamlets Community Housing for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages. The hearing took place by telephone at East London Hearing Centre on 14 October 2022 before Employment Judge A Frazer, with no attendance for the claimant and representation for the respondent by Mr C Cuckney of counsel/solicitor as recorded in the judgment.
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records the claims as unfair dismissal, race discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages, and records no separate liability findings or remedy assessment beyond dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47; the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47; the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a claim for notice pay; dismissed under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47. | 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.