Case 2207946/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Simmons v Capricorn Wealth Management Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207946/2022
- Decision date
- 31 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Simmons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 3 July 2023 Employment Judge Tinnion made an order under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 providing that the claims would be dismissed without further order unless, by 31 July 2023, the claimant either disclosed to the respondent's solicitors a copy of the police caution he had said he received at the preliminary hearing on 23 February 2023, or sent an affidavit from a solicitor with a current practising certificate stating that neither the claimant nor the solicitor had been able, despite reasonable efforts, to obtain and disclose the caution and giving full factual particulars explaining why.
The tribunal considered the claimant's correspondence dated 31 July 2023 and 21 August 2023 and found that he had not disclosed a copy of the police caution and had not sent an affidavit in the form ordered. Employment Judge Joffe therefore concluded that there had been non-compliance with the order made by Employment Judge Tinnion, with the result that the claimant's claims were dismissed under rule 38. The hearing listed for 14 and 15 September 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not break out separate reasons for each pleaded claim; the case was dismissed under rule 38 for non-compliance with the tribunal's order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not break out separate reasons for each pleaded claim; the case was dismissed under rule 38 for non-compliance with the tribunal's order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not break out separate reasons for each pleaded claim; the case was dismissed under rule 38 for non-compliance with the tribunal's order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.