Case 3335436/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Aspire Care (LAL) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3335436/2018
- Decision date
- 9 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe full merits hearing was listed to determine claims for unlawful deduction from wages, notice pay or wrongful dismissal, and an alleged breach of the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing. The claimant had been employed as a Senior Therapeutic Care Advisor from 3 January 2017 until dismissal on 6 September 2018, and presented the claim on 18 December 2018.
The hearing was due to take place by Cloud Video Platform. The respondent had told the tribunal it was closing its business and would not attend. The claimant's former representatives had ceased to act, and the tribunal sent the hearing details to the email address they provided for the claimant.
Neither party attended the hearing. The tribunal noted that the papers did not include income details, so it would not have been possible to determine the sums claimed under the different heads. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's non-attendance amounted to a failure actively to pursue the claim under Rule 37(1)(d), and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim included one day's pay. It was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because the claimant did not attend and the tribunal found a failure actively to pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim included one day's accrued untaken holiday pay on termination. It was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this as notice pay or wrongful dismissal. It was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim included an alleged breach of the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing under section 10. The judgment refers once to the Employment Relations Act 1999 and once to the Employment Rights Act 1996; the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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.