Case 1802816/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Robinson v Actavo (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802816/2021
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted remotely on 15 July 2021 before Employment Judge JM Wade, who heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Robinson, and for the respondent from Mr O'Connor. The judgment records that the claimant's unlawful deductions from wages complaint and breach of contract complaint were both dismissed because they had been presented outside the relevant time limits, the tribunal finding that it had been reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time.
The judgment also records that the claimant's complaint of entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment was presented in time, but that it was subject to separate Orders. The extracted text does not contain a merits determination or any monetary award for that complaint.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it was presented outside the relevant time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because it was presented outside the relevant time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that this complaint was presented in time, but the judgment says it was subject to separate Orders and does not record a merits outcome in the extracted text. | 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.