Case 2204124/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204124/2021
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant, Mr G Knott and Mr S Ismael, together with submissions from the claimant and Ms S Harty. It decided that the claims for breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages did not succeed and were dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract element together with the unauthorised deduction of wages claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction of wages element together with the breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.23 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.