Case 4103748/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Mwamba v No appearance and No representation Medica Skin Clinic — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103748/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Mwamba
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held by audio on 3 December 2020 before Employment Judge R McPherson. The respondent did not take part because it had not presented an ET3. The claimant also did not take part, and the clerk made reasonable enquiries about the absence, including trying to contact the claimant using both telephone numbers provided.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were dismissed. It did not make findings on the merits of the substantive complaints in the extracted text.
The dismissal was recorded under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separate any award by claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separate any award by claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separate any award by claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separate any award by claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal 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.