Case 3305358/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Csoka v Hayes Specialist Recruitment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305358/2020
- Decision date
- 24 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Csoka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Csoka was a temporary worker registered with Hayes Specialist Recruitment Ltd and placed at the University of East Anglia in a cleaning role. He was furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme from 28 March 2020 and presented a claim for arrears of pay on 8 June 2020.
The claim was listed for hearing on 8 February 2021. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not complied with case management orders, had filed no evidence, and had not engaged with the respondent about the bundle. He did not attend the hearing, did not answer the tribunal’s telephone call, and did not respond to an email sent during the hearing.
Employment Judge Anderson dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because of the claimant’s failure to appear. The respondent had also sought strike out under rule 37, but the tribunal’s decision was dismissal for non-attendance. The respondent’s application for costs was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal did not determine the merits of the arrears of pay claim. It dismissed the claim under rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47, schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37 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.