Case 1406516/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Maidment v EQ Acoustics Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406516/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Maidment
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Salter held that the Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and accrued but untaken holiday pay had been presented out of time, in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. The judgment records those claims as time-barred rather than determining their merits.
The tribunal also dealt with the Respondent's strike-out application in relation to the redundancy payment claim. That application failed, so the redundancy payment claim was not struck out by this judgment.
No monetary award is recorded in the written decision. The judgment was given orally on 29 July 2021 and sent to the parties on 10 August 2021.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found to have been presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Found to have been presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Found to have been presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday was found to have been presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Respondent's application to strike out the redundancy payment claim failed; this judgment did not finally determine the merits of that claim. | 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.