Case 3310016/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Robin Grussman v Bills Restaurant Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310016/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Robin Grussman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 23 March 2022 before Employment Judge Dick. The claimant, Robin Grussman, did not appear and was not represented. The respondent, Bills Restaurant Ltd, was represented by Stuart Morley, an advocate.
The written judgment states that all claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing in person or over the Cloud Video Platform. The record does not identify any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not set out the substantive particulars of the claim. The tribunal recorded that all claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing in person or via the Cloud Video Platform. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not set out the substantive particulars of the claim. The tribunal recorded that all claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing in person or via the Cloud Video Platform. | 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.