Case 3323597/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323597/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the final hearing. He had previously asked for the hearing to take place by CVP, but that request had been refused. On the morning of the hearing he emailed the respondent saying he could not attend because his daughter had contracted Covid.
The tribunal administration replied that the case could be heard by CVP at 11am and asked the claimant to confirm so that a link could be sent. No response was received from the claimant.
Employment Judge Ord considered that the burden of proof lay on the claimant, and also considered a witness statement from Mr Kupczyk, Custodial Manager, about the reason for and lawfulness of deductions made from the claimant's final salary. The judge was satisfied that the claim was not being actively pursued and had no reasonable prospects of success, and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was dismissed, and the reasons state that it was struck out because it was not being actively pursued and had no reasonable prospects of success. The only substantive issue identified in the judgment is deductions from the claimant's final salary. | Struck out | — | — |
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.