Case 2200348/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MR D POPA v Frs Contractor Solutions Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200348/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR D POPA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short oral judgment given at the hearing on 20 June 2023 before Employment Judge Skehan, with the written record noting that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The claimant, MR D Popa, brought claims against FRS Contractor Solutions Ltd for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and breach of contract.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service, and the tribunal said it therefore did not have jurisdiction to consider that claim. The written record does not set out any further findings on the dismissal claim beyond the service threshold point.
The claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract were both found to be unsuccessful and dismissed. The written record does not provide separate reasons for those claims and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service and the employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was unsuccessful and dismissed; no further reasoning is given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The written record states that the breach of contract claim was unsuccessful and dismissed; no further reasoning is given. | 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.