Case 3213355/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rudenko v Cordant Recruitment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213355/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rudenko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Rudenko presented claims on 6 November 2020 seeking £556.77 in respect of unpaid wages, notice pay and expenses for PPE, including boots, trousers and a high-visibility jacket. Cordant Recruitment Ltd denied the claims and said the claimant was under contract for supply as an agency worker to other organisations, that he had failed to attend assignments, and that he was not entitled to the sums claimed.
The claimant did not comply with Tribunal orders dated 8 December 2020 requiring disclosure of documents and evidence to support his case. He also made no contact with the respondent to cooperate in preparing for the hearing. He did not attend the final hearing and gave no explanation for his absence.
At the final hearing on 26 April 2021, Employment Judge Burgher held that the claimant had not attended to give evidence to establish his claims. The tribunal therefore found that the claims failed and were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claim as a whole and does not separate findings between individual heads of claim; this entry reflects the breach of contract head identified in the listing context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claim as a whole and does not separate findings between individual heads of claim; this entry reflects the wages-related head identified in the listing context. | 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.