Case 3304408/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms MB Coleman v Elegance Beauty Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304408/2018
- Decision date
- 1 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms MB Coleman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs MB Coleman’s claim against Elegance Beauty was listed for hearing at Bury St Edmunds on 1 October 2019. The claimant did not attend, did not provide a valid reason for her absence, and had not made a postponement request. A Spanish interpreter had been booked at the claimant’s request and was released after she failed to attend. The respondent attended and was prepared to deal with the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out under Rule 37 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing, had not made a postponement request, and gave no valid reason for non-attendance. The tribunal noted this was the second time the claimant had not attended, that an interpreter had been arranged at public expense, and that the respondent attended ready to deal with the matter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.