Case 2306134/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Pisapia v Orange Genie — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306134/2023
- Decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Pisapia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Pisapia brought complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract against Orange Genie. The hearing was held on 19 September 2024 before Employment Judge Ramsden, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent non-attending.
The tribunal decided that both complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time, but found that it was not then presented within a further reasonable period.
Because of that limitation finding, the claims were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but found it was also not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but found it was also not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- further reasonable period
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.