Case 3302712/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M. Richardson v Sbfm Full Merits Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302712/2023
- Decision date
- 14 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M. Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Richardson brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, saying in the claim form that on some occasions she had not been paid her wages or had been paid at the wrong hourly rate. The respondent said it did not understand precisely what was said to be owed, and no further communication was received from the claimant after the claim was presented.
The final hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence. The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not attend, gave no advance notice of non-attendance, and could not be contacted on the morning of the hearing despite attempts to do so. The tribunal also noted that it was not possible to determine the claim because the claim form did not fully particularise the amount of wages alleged to be unpaid or the dates and periods of any underpayment.
Taking account of the overriding objective and the claimant's failure to provide any reason for her absence, the tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under section 13(1) ERA 1996 alleging non-payment or underpayment of wages. Tribunal found the claim form did not fully particularise the amounts or the relevant dates/periods, and the claimant did not attend the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- overriding objective
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.