Case 6028850/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Monro v Dean Blakey — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028850/2025
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Monro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sent connection details to the parties late and postponed the start time by 30 minutes so that the details could be sent. It was satisfied that the parties had the connection details before the hearing resumed, but the claimant did not attend and did not answer two calls to her mobile.
The claimant had not complied with case management orders to prepare for the hearing and had filed no evidence or calculation of losses. The respondent was debarred from taking part because he had failed to present a response. Considering rule 47 of the Tribunal rules, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the claimant's failure to attend, and observed that it would also have been dismissed on the merits because no evidence or calculations had been provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The listing categories identify Transfer of Undertakings, but the judgment itself does not set out the substantive allegation. The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The listing categories identify unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment itself does not set out the substantive allegation or any wage figure. The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Tribunal rules
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.