Case 3302159/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yick Sze v M Wierzbowska and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302159/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Yick Sze
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 18 August 2025, before Employment Judge Richard Wood, the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondents attended through counsel, Mr Engler. The judgment records that the claimant had not provided a reason for her non-attendance and appeared not to have kept her contact details up to date.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(b) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024. The judgment contains no merits findings and no remedy award, because the case was disposed of by strike-out rather than by determination of the underlying complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not set out separate heads of claim, but the gov.uk listing identifies race discrimination and the judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 38(1)(b) and (d) because the claimant did not attend, gave no reason, and appeared not to have kept her contact details up to date. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not break out the claims individually; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 38(1)(b) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 because the claimant did not attend, gave no reason, and appeared not to have kept her contact details up to date. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(b) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
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.