Case 3314601/2023 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v G Hipperson — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314601/2023
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video at Norwich on 28 January 2025 before Employment Judge W Anderson. Neither party attended. The respondent had taken no part in the proceedings and had not filed an ET1. The claimant had been ordered to file any documents on which he intended to rely by 28 November 2024, but did not do so; the day before the hearing he emailed 10 screenshots from a mobile phone.
The claimant was sent a link to attend the hearing, but did not contact the tribunal to say he could not attend or to ask for a postponement. The clerk emailed and telephoned him at 2pm on the day of the hearing, but there was no response and he did not attend. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim because the parties failed to attend, applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the substantive pleaded issue; this classification follows the GOV.UK case listing for unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because the parties failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.