Case 3302337/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Vidal Pierre and Ms Paula Carmen v Austin D’arcy Care Services Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302337/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Vidal Pierre and Ms Paula Carmen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Vidal Pierre and Ms Paula Carmen brought claims against Austin D’arcy Care Services Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) in case numbers 3302337/2023 and 3302338/2023. The case was heard at Cambridge by Employment Judge Davey on 2 October 2023. Neither side attended the hearing.
The judgment records that the claimants’ claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis of non-attendance. No substantive findings of liability, facts in issue, or remedy assessment are recorded in the written judgment.
The written record does not break out a monetary award or any separate heads of loss. It also does not identify a panel of lay members, indicating a judge-alone hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record states that the claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because neither claimant nor respondent attended the hearing. The judgment does not set out a substantive liability finding for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states that the claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because neither claimant nor respondent attended the hearing. The judgment does not set out a substantive liability finding for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the 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.