Case 1600468/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Crebolder v Pinnacle Office Equipment Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600468/2019
- Decision date
- 23 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RL Brace
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Crebolder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Crebolder’s claims against Pinnacle Office Equipment Ltd were heard at Cardiff on 19 September 2019 before Employment Judge R L Brace. The written judgment records that the claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by Mr A Baker.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages claims were brought out of time. It decided that time should not be extended, and dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal also held that the discrimination claims were brought out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and dismissed the discrimination claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim was found to be out of time; time was not extended and it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim was found to be out of time; time was not extended and it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The discrimination claims were found to be out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The discrimination claims were found to be out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.