Case 1803587/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803587/2022
- Decision date
- 26 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Sheffield by CVP on 24 November 2022 before Employment Judge A James. The claimant, Mr Dale Moses, appeared in person and the respondent, Lidl Great Britain Limited, was represented by Ms A Smith, counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim brought under Article 5 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.
The claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was recorded as resolved, with no finding necessary, and was dismissed. No monetary award was made. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing unless a request was made within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim under Article 5 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal recorded that it had been resolved and that no finding was necessary. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 5 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.