Case 1400577/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Claus Bødker v MouldCAM Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400577/2023
- Decision date
- 19 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leverton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Claus Bødker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was listed to decide whether the employment tribunal could consider the claimant's claims. The tribunal held that the hearing was not a strike-out hearing under rule 37, but concerned whether the claims should be dismissed because the tribunal was not the appropriate forum or because the statutory claims were outside the territorial scope of the relevant legislation.
The tribunal found that the claimant, a Danish national living and working in Denmark, was employed by a UK company with its administrative, manufacturing and decision-making hub in Poole. It found that the employment contract was drawn up with reference to UK employment law, that the claimant was integrated with the Poole operation, and that the connection with Great Britain and British employment law was stronger than with any other system of law.
The tribunal concluded that the employment tribunal was the appropriate forum for the contractual claims. It also concluded that the claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay and unlawful deductions from wages fell within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the holiday pay claim fell within the territorial scope of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to various sums said to be due under the contract. The tribunal decided it was the appropriate forum for contractual claims under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal decided the claim falls within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal decided the claim falls within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes a notice pay claim and contractual claims. The tribunal decided it was the appropriate forum for contractual claims under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal decided the holiday pay claim falls within the territorial scope of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal decided the claim falls within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Liability and remedy were not determined. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Lawson v Serco Ltd
- Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Rights Act 1996
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.