Case 3320831/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Kenalemang v Coghlan Lodges Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320831/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Kenalemang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss I Kenalemang brought a complaint of unpaid wages against Coghlan Lodges Limited, which entered no response. Because no response had been filed, the tribunal wrote to the claimant on 17 November 2019 asking for information about the amount claimed so that a rule 21 judgment could be considered.
The claimant did not reply to that letter and neither party attended the hearing on 3 February 2020. The tribunal noted that no explanation or application for postponement had been received, and that tribunal staff had also left a voicemail for the claimant the day before the hearing. Employment Judge Anstis decided under rule 47 to proceed in the parties' absence.
The judge held that it was for the claimant to prove entitlement to a particular amount of unpaid wages. In the absence of any response to the tribunal's letter or attendance at the hearing, the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any unpaid wages were due. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the matter as a complaint of unpaid wages and dismisses the claim because the claimant did not provide the requested amount or attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21
- rule 47
- balance of probabilities
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.