Case 3307620/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Luis v JSA Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307620/2020
- Decision date
- 1 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Luis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich by CVP on 1 April 2021 before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant, Mrs C Luis, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Mr Harris, Manager. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was remote and proceeded on the papers because a face-to-face hearing was not practicable during the pandemic.
The judgment on full merits states that, given the claimant's non-appearance and no one appearing on her behalf, her claims against JSA Services Limited were dismissed because they were no longer actively pursued. The decision does not set out substantive findings on liability issues, and no remedy was awarded.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No panel members are listed with the judgment, and the decision appears to have been issued by Employment Judge Postle sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not state the pleaded claim type in the text provided. The claim_type is inferred from the Gov.uk listing category and the case context; the judgment itself states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed because they were no longer actively pursued after she did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.