Case 6026666/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Mr C Pearce Belief Sports Ltd v Mr C Pearce Belief Sports Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6026666/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent: Mr C Pearce Belief Sports Ltd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to Belief Sports Ltd. Employment Judge C Sharp sat alone at Cardiff by CVP on 27 October 2025. The claimant, Mr C Pearce, was not in attendance and was not excused; the respondent was debarred and also not in attendance.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and the claim for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment states that the claimant did not attend the hearing, did not respond sufficiently to the tribunal's queries about the claim, including how any amount had been calculated, and provided no evidence.
When called by the tribunal, the claimant said that he was not attending despite the hearing not having been postponed and despite having access to the portal to check the position. The decision records no substantive findings on the merits of either claim and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend, did not sufficiently answer the tribunal's queries about the claim or calculation, and provided no evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars dismissed under Rule 47 for the same procedural reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.