Case 2304587/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ebenezer Hayford v Towers Associates and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304587/2020
- Decision date
- 16 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ebenezer Hayford
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Martin heard the case on 16 September 2021. The judgment records that the claimant, Ebenezer Hayford, appeared in person, and that the first and second respondents were represented by counsel. The decision does not set out the factual background of the dispute in the extracted text.
The tribunal decided that the claimant’s claims were brought out of time. On that basis, it held that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment therefore does not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
The extracted judgment does not identify any monetary award or remedy, and it states that oral reasons were given at the conclusion of the hearing. Written reasons were not to be provided unless requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was brought out of time and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The extracted text does not set out the underlying factual basis of the breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim was brought out of time and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The extracted text does not set out the underlying factual basis of the wages deduction claim. | 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.