Case 3207910/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Sekaran v Andy Saxena — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207910/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Sekaran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss H Sekaran’s claim against Andy Saxena was listed for hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 14 October 2022. Neither party attended or was represented. The Employment Judge therefore dealt with the case pursuant to rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal dismissed the claim. The reason given was that there was no evidence that there was an employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent personally. The judgment also noted that there was no information as to whether the restaurant chain Gourmet4 was the trading style of an individual or a company.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under rule 47 after neither party attended the final hearing. The Employment Judge stated there was no evidence of an employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent personally, and no information as to whether Gourmet4 was the trading style of an individual or a company. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.