Case 2304920/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Marcelo v Surrey and Borders NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304920/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Marcelo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South CVP hearing on 29 October 2024, Employment Judge O’Neill dismissed Mr L Marcelo's unfair dismissal complaint because he did not have the necessary length of service to bring such a claim. The tribunal also dismissed the claim described as automatic unfair dismissal, together with the breach of contract claim and the unlawful deduction of wages claim, on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them because they were out of time.
Mr Marcelo's health and safety complaint was also dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the types of claims advanced. No claim succeeded, and the judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary length of service to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as a claim for automatic unfair dismissal but does not identify the underlying statutory basis; it was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it as it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a health and safety claim, but does not specify the statutory route; the tribunal dismissed it because it had no jurisdiction to hear the types of claims advanced. | 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.