Case 3312909/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Potolinca v Unique Employment Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312909/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Potolinca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 11 February 2022 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. The claimant, Mr T Potolinca, did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal made practicable enquiries about his absence, including telephoning the number on the ET1 and sending an email to the address used in the claim and in correspondence for the hearing, but received no response. The respondent was ready to proceed and its witnesses attended.
The tribunal referred to Rule 47 and concluded that dismissal was appropriate. It noted that the claimant had been aware of the hearing since August, had been reminded of it by the respondent's representative, had not complied with orders to provide documents or statements, and there was no reason to think he would attend a resumed hearing. The judgment therefore dismissed the claim in the claimant's absence and did not address the underlying merits of any wage or working time complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and the tribunal was not invited to proceed in his absence. The judgment does not determine the merits of the wage claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and the tribunal was not invited to proceed in his absence. The judgment does not determine the merits of the working time claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.