Case 1404045/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Sutopo v A Mead & K Hawke Farming — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404045/2022
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Sutopo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Sutopo brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, unauthorised deductions in respect of holiday pay, and unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against A Mead & K Hawke Farming. Employment Judge Murdoch, sitting alone at Southampton by VHS on 18 April 2023, dealt with the matter as a preliminary issue of time limits.
The tribunal held that all of the complaints were brought out of time. It further found that time should not be extended. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed each claim for lack of jurisdiction.
No remedy was awarded because none of the claims was entertained on the merits. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Brought out of time; time was not extended; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim brought out of time; time was not extended; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deductions claim in respect of holiday pay brought out of time; time was not extended; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from pay claim under Part II ERA 1996 brought out of time; time was not extended; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | 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.