Case 2303387/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joelle Seedo v Teleperformance limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303387/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joelle Seedo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal considered whether the claimant had complied with the early conciliation requirements before bringing proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not reported the matter to ACAS or obtained an early conciliation certificate before issuing proceedings. It rejected the claimant's ET1 assertion that the respondent had already contacted ACAS, noting that the respondent denied this and the claimant had provided no supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that none of the statutory exemptions applied. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The gov.uk listing categories indicate Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself does not identify the substantive claim beyond stating that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 18A(1) or 18A(4) of Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 18A(7)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.