Case 1303498/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Schrijvers v Masteron Group of Companies and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303498/2021
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr K Schrijvers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the matter was heard at Birmingham by video link on 9 to 12 January and 13 to 14 February 2023 before Employment Judge J Jones. It is described as a judgment following a preliminary hearing in public. The claimant was represented by Mr L Wilson and the respondents by Mr R Kohanzad.
The tribunal dismissed the claims against the first, second, third and fourth respondents. The judgment does not set out separate substantive findings on the underlying causes of action, but it records a dismissal of the claims as against those respondents.
The claimant's application to amend the claim so as to join Masteron Sdn Bhd, Wai Ceong Choy and Wai Hin Choy as respondents failed and was dismissed. The respondents' application for costs was also dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims against the first to fourth respondents were dismissed at a preliminary hearing; it does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claims against the first to fourth respondents were dismissed at a preliminary hearing; it does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims against the first to fourth respondents were dismissed at a preliminary hearing; it does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims against the first to fourth respondents were dismissed at a preliminary hearing; it does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claims against the first to fourth respondents were dismissed at a preliminary hearing; it does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | 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.