Case 2204176/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Crook v School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204176/2022
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Connolly Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Crook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Crook, brought claims against the School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London for unauthorised deduction from wages and unfair dismissal. The hearing took place at London Central via CVP on 2 December 2022 before Employment Judge S Connolly. The claimant did not attend and the respondent was represented by Ms Urmston.
The Tribunal did not determine either claim on the merits. It held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unauthorised deduction from wages claim because it was not submitted within the time limit required by section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It reached the same jurisdictional conclusion on the unfair dismissal claim, holding that it was not submitted within the time limit required by section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was not presented within the time limit in section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(2) 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.