Case 1600135/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person FOR THE v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600135/2019
- Decision date
- 13 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Howden-Evans Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Cardiff on 13 May 2019, Employment Judge Howden-Evans considered the bundle of documents, the witness statement of Mr Hancock, and submissions from Mr Purnell and Mr Theophilus. The only claim identified in the judgment was a claim for unlawful deductions from wages brought by Mr Michael Theophilus against Balfour Beatty Group Employment Limited.
The employment judge decided that the unlawful deductions claim had no reasonable prospect of success. On that basis, the claim was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the judge explained her reasons at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.