Case 3319622/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Not present or represented — 2021
- Case reference
- 3319622/2019
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Mr C Surrey, Mr J Vaghela
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the case had originally involved many claimants, but all except Mrs D Alouakh and Mr L Kaminskas had withdrawn their claims before the hearing on 26 April 2021. The respondent was in administration, and the administrators had informed the tribunal and the claimants that they would not attend the hearing.
Neither claimant attended the preliminary hearing on 19 April 2021, and neither attended the hearing on 26 April 2021. The tribunal noted that it could see the first claimant had received notice of the hearing, but was not sure whether the second claimant had received notice.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal concluded that neither claimant was pressing the claim and dismissed the wage claims. It noted that either claimant could apply for reconsideration under rule 71 if they had intended to press the claim and had a good reason for not attending, such as not receiving notice of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claims as claims in respect of wages and dismisses them after neither claimant attended the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.