Case 2207506/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Diaz-Rio Varez v Alphier Capital LLP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207506/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Diaz-Rio Varez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone via CVP on 21 November 2022. The Claimant, Mr G Diaz-Rio Varez, brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Alphier Capital LLP. The Tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time and that the Claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. On that basis, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out.
The Tribunal also dealt with the Respondent’s counterclaim. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim because the Claimant did not bring a claim of breach of contract, and it therefore struck the counterclaim out. The Respondent’s application for the costs of the preliminary hearing was refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim was presented out of time. The Tribunal found he had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction and struck the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Respondent’s counterclaim was struck out because the Claimant did not bring a claim of breach of contract, so the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.