Case 2303411/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Dougherty v DFDS (Guernsey) Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 2303411/2017
- Decision date
- 30 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Dougherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 April 2018, at Ashford, Employment Judge Pritchard dealt with the Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(1)(b). The application was refused. The Tribunal found that, at material times, Mr Dougherty was ordinarily resident in both France and Great Britain and therefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal also ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment states that the Claimant's holiday pay and suspension issues would proceed as a claim for breach of contract. No merits determination, findings on liability, or monetary award are recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(1)(b) was refused. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the claim because the Claimant was ordinarily resident in both France and Great Britain at material times. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim for unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records that the Claimant's holiday pay and suspension issues would proceed as a claim for breach of contract, but no final merits decision or award is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(b)
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.