Case 2300448/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr P C Sherwood (2) Mr M Gore v Erith Contractors Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300448/2019
- Decision date
- 10 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr P C Sherwood (2) Mr M Gore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held at London South Tribunals on 23 August 2019 before Employment Judge Freer. The decision, dated 10 October 2019, records that the tribunal was considering whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claimants' claims against Erith Contractors Limited.
The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimants' claims. No substantive determination was made on liability for the underlying complaints, and the judgment does not record any findings on the merits of dismissal, deductions from wages, working time, or breach of contract.
The reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimants' claims; no substantive breach of contract finding was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimants' claims; no substantive unfair dismissal finding was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimants' claims; no substantive unlawful deduction from wages finding was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimants' claims; no substantive Working Time Regulations finding was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
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.