Case 2203450/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr SJ O’Connor v Pasley-Tyler & Co Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203450/2019
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr SJ O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing in London Central on 21 July 2023 before Employment Judge R Russell, the tribunal considered Mr SJ O’Connor’s claim against Pasley-Tyler & Co Limited. The written judgment records that the claim was presented outside the time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records a single time-limit/jurisdiction dismissal and does not set out separate merits findings on this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a single time-limit/jurisdiction dismissal and does not set out separate merits findings on this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a single time-limit/jurisdiction dismissal and does not set out separate merits findings on this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records a single time-limit/jurisdiction dismissal and does not set out separate merits findings on this head. | 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.