Case 6007759/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Empeya v Sidra Domiciliary Care Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007759/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Empeya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 7 January 2025 at East London Hearing Centre by CVP before Employment Judge M Martin. Neither party attended or was represented. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had given no explanation for her non-attendance and had not complied with the orders made in the proceedings.
After reviewing the file, the Employment Judge concluded that the claimant was not intending to pursue the proceedings. The judgment therefore dismissed the claimant's complaints of breach of contract (notice pay), breach of the Working Time Regulations (holiday pay), and unlawful deduction from wages. The decision does not contain findings on the merits of those claims, and no financial award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed after the claimant did not attend the hearing, gave no explanation for her non-attendance, and had not complied with case orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Breach of the Working Time Regulations claim for holiday pay dismissed on the same basis of non-attendance and non-compliance with orders; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim dismissed after the tribunal reviewed the file following the claimant's non-attendance and concluded she was not intending to pursue the proceedings. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.