Case 2302203/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Rivera v Capital Staffing Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302203/2020
- Decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Rivera
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 1 February 2022, with the claimant not attending, Employment Judge Self refused the claimant's application for a postponement. The judgment then dealt with the claims procedurally rather than deciding liability on the merits.
Two unlawful deduction of wages claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success: the claim covering February to April 2016 and the claim for unpaid basic salary at paragraph 19.1. The tribunal also imposed a £1,000 deposit order per claim on the automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claim for salary and salary bonus at paragraph 19.2, and the wrongful dismissal claim at paragraph 21.2.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the salary bonus claim at paragraph 19.1, the company bonus claim at paragraph 19.3, and the claim linked to unpaid pension contributions at paragraph 21.1 were stated to remain to be determined at a final hearing. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim covering February to April 2016 struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim relating to unpaid basic salary at paragraph 19.1 struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 made subject to a £1,000 deposit order per claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim for salary and salary bonus at paragraph 19.2; the judgment did not specify a statutory label, and it was made subject to a £1,000 deposit order per claim. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim at paragraph 21.2 made subject to a £1,000 deposit order per claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim stated to remain to be determined at a final hearing. | Other | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.