Case 1800902/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800902/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, outstanding wages and holiday pay. The Tribunal held that it only had jurisdiction to deal with those complaints against the Claimant's employer. It struck out the claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents because they were not the Claimant's employer.
As against the First Respondent, the Tribunal found that the claims for unfair dismissal, outstanding wages and holiday pay were not presented within the tribunal time limits. It also found that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed those complaints for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint against the First Respondent was presented outside the tribunal time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. Claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents were struck out because they were not the Claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal treated the complaint for outstanding wages as time-barred against the First Respondent and lacking jurisdiction. Claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents were struck out because they were not the Claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal treated the holiday pay complaint as time-barred against the First Respondent and lacking jurisdiction. Claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents were struck out because they were not the Claimant's employer. | 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.