Case 3303559/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend, unrepresented For the v Andrew Kane, Managing Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303559/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend, unrepresented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was listed for 19 February 2021. The parties were first notified on 3 October 2020, and then on 17 February 2021 they were told the hearing would take place by CVP at 10am and that they should not attend the tribunal centre. On 18 February 2021 the claimant emailed the tribunal saying that 24 hours' notice was too short to arrange time off work to attend.
Employment Judge Allen held that the claimant had had ample time to arrange attendance with his employer because he had been notified of the date and time of the hearing on 3 October 2020. The tribunal said the later change to a video hearing did not alter that position. It found that the claimant had failed to attend the hearing and that the claim was not being actively pursued.
Under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Constitution and Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not restate the substantive claim label in the reasons section, but the GOV.UK listing for this case identifies the claim as unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety because the claimant did not attend the final hearing and the claim was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Constitution and 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.