Case 4107981/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Mullarkey v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107981/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ronald Mackay
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms N Mullarkey
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Mullarkey brought a claim described in the judgment as a claim for arrears of pay. In her ET1 she said she was due a week's pay. The respondent said that all sums due had been paid, and the tribunal recorded that the precise basis of the claim and its calculation were not clear from the ET1.
The hearing was listed by CVP on 6 September 2021. By 10.30am neither party was present or represented, and the tribunal clerk emailed both sides to ask whether there were any difficulties attending. No response was received, and the Employment Judge kept the virtual room open for 15 minutes to allow for late attendance.
The tribunal noted that both parties had failed to attend, but the claim was one where the claimant bore the burden of proof. No reason was advanced for the claimant's absence. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2003.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the case as a claim for arrears of pay. The claimant said she was due a week's pay, but the precise basis of the claim and its calculation were not clear from the ET1. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2003
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.