Case 3307458/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Pothecary v v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307458/2020
- Decision date
- 26 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Pothecary v
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Oasis Fashions Limited, which went into administration on 15 April 2020. She brought claims for a protective award for failure to consult, a redundancy payment, notice pay, arrears of pay and unfair dismissal. The claim had been stayed pending consent from the administrators, and the administrators later consented to the claim proceeding while disputing the protective award claim.
The tribunal listed the matter for a video hearing on 14 July 2022 and made case management orders requiring the claimant to provide details of the sums claimed, supporting documents and a witness statement. The claimant did not provide that information, did not attend the hearing, was not represented, and did not contact the tribunal to explain her absence.
The tribunal concluded that the claim had not been actively pursued and that it appeared the claimant had decided not to pursue it. In those circumstances, the whole claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, which concerns non-attendance at a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for alleged failure to consult was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not comply with case management orders and did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed under rule 47; the tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed under rule 47; classified as breach of contract because the judgment refers to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay claim dismissed under rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47; the tribunal did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 47
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.