Case 3205532/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Khatun v UC Franchising Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205532/2022
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Khatun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Khatun did not attend the hearing on 24 May 2023 and was not represented. UC Franchising Limited did not enter a response, did not attend, and was not represented. Employment Judge B Elgot noted that the claimant was telephoned on the number supplied, reasonable steps were taken to enquire about the reason for her absence, and no answer was obtained.
Relying on Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the judge dismissed all the claims because the hearing could not proceed in the absence of further information from the claimant. The judgment records no findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because neither party attended and the tribunal could not proceed without further information from the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the listed written pay statement complaint; the judgment dismisses all claims under Rule 47 without separate merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.