Case 3306567/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Thanabalasingam v Hiit Kitchen Food Services Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306567/2021
- Decision date
- 28 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford In person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Thanabalasingam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 23 August 2022 before Employment Judge Bedeau. The claimant and the respondent did not attend; the respondent was noted as being in liquidation.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to attend the hearing without good reason and that the tribunal was unable to contact him on his mobile phone. Having considered the case file, the tribunal dismissed all claims against the respondent under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, as amended.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment dismisses all claims under rule 47; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories rather than identified individually in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses all claims under rule 47; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories rather than identified individually in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses all claims under rule 47; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories rather than identified individually in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47, 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.