Case 2301896/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Graham Kempster v The Rec Horsham Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301896/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Representation
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Graham Kempster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South via CVP on 3 March 2022 before Employment Judge Krepski. The claimant was represented by Ms Daymond and the respondent by Mr Grant. In the written judgment, the tribunal struck out the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages prior to 25 May 2019 because it was time-barred and had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also recorded that the claims concerning company sick pay, pension contributions and/or pension payments, and expenses and National Insurance contributions were withdrawn and dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages prior to 25 May 2019 was time-barred and had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim in respect of company sick pay; the written record says it was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim in respect of pension contributions and/or pension payments; the written record says it was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim in respect of expenses and National Insurance contributions; the written record says it was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.