Case 2302192/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr R Scupal (Consultant) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302192/2020
- Decision date
- 20 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Members
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal heard the case at London South on 20 September 2021 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr R Scupal, Consultant. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' service. The Tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with that claim.
The claims of constructive dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages were also dismissed. In each case, the Tribunal found that the claim had been presented outside the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present it in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' service, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.