Case 1405934/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Michael Deeks v Corin Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405934/2019
- Decision date
- 29 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michael Deeks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol CVP hearing on 24 July 2020, before Employment Judge M. Salter, the tribunal considered Michael Deeks's unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints against Corin Limited. The judgment records that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because of the Settlement Agreement.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint. Its reason was that the Settlement Agreement was signed after the termination of employment, so the tribunal could not hear the claim under Art 3 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint owing to the Settlement Agreement. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint because the Settlement Agreement was signed after termination of employment, so the claim could not be heard under Art 3 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.