Case 2301073/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Yasini Mfunda v London Borough of Southwark — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301073/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Yasini Mfunda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case concerned a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. The claimant said the council operated a flexitime system and that he was owed about 89 hours when he left on 12 February 2019.
Before the scheduled hearing, the claimant emailed the respondent's solicitors, copying the tribunal and ACAS, to withdraw his application. He later said he had misunderstood the respondent's counter-schedule as a settlement offer, but the tribunal found the wording identified it as a counter-schedule setting out the maximum amount he could receive, rather than as an offer of settlement.
The tribunal held that, under rule 51, once the claimant had informed the tribunal in writing that the claim was withdrawn, the claim came to an end and could not be reactivated. However, because there may have been some confusion when the claimant withdrew, the tribunal declined in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim outright under rule 52. The claim therefore stood withdrawn and the proceedings were at an end.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant's email withdrawing the claim brought the claim to an end. The tribunal declined to dismiss the claim outright under rule 52, so the claim stands withdrawn rather than dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 51 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust 2007 ICR 24, CA
- reasonably practicable
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.