Case 3321337/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F I Urban v Arthur Vissing — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321337/2019
- Decision date
- 18 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F I Urban
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Urban’s claim form was treated as containing a potential complaint under section 11(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, because she said she wanted to receive a contract or written statement of employment. The tribunal noted that she did not identify the particulars she said should have been included in that document.
The claimant did not attend the hearing on 18 August 2020. The respondent had not entered a response and also did not attend. The tribunal referred to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which allows the tribunal to dismiss a claim or proceed in the absence of a party after considering available information and any practicable enquiries about the absence.
Having considered the claim form and the absence of any response, the tribunal found that, because the claimant had not provided particulars of what she required to be set out in the contract or written statement, it was not possible to determine the claim in her favour. The complaint was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal treated the claim form as a potential complaint under section 11(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning a written statement of employment particulars, but dismissed it because the claimant did not set out the particulars she said should have been included. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 11(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 47 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.