Case 2200530/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Marlowe James Perfecto v Aaron Etingen — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200530/2025
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hopton Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Marlowe James Perfecto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central Employment Tribunal in public by video on 10 November 2025 before Employment Judge Hopton. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim because it did not have jurisdiction to determine it. The judgment also ordered that the deposits paid by the claimant, totalling £90, were forfeited.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The short preliminary hearing judgment dismisses the claim for lack of jurisdiction and does not give separate reasoning or remedy allocation for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The short preliminary hearing judgment dismisses the claim for lack of jurisdiction and does not give separate reasoning or remedy allocation for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short preliminary hearing judgment dismisses the claim for lack of jurisdiction and does not give separate reasoning or remedy allocation for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short preliminary hearing judgment dismisses the claim for lack of jurisdiction and does not give separate reasoning or remedy allocation for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The short preliminary hearing judgment dismisses the claim for lack of jurisdiction and does not give separate reasoning or remedy allocation for this claim type. | 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.