Case 2402243/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Mulligan v Roxy Ball Room Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402243/2021
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Mulligan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool via CVP on 12 November 2021 before Employment Judge Sharkett. The claimant, Mr S Mulligan, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr R Taylor, solicitor. The tribunal gave its decision orally at the hearing and recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the claim was not well founded on that basis.
The claimant’s claim for non-payment of monies, described in the judgment as wages, was also dismissed as not well founded. The record does not set out a separate monetary remedy, and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claim was not well founded and that it did not have jurisdiction because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for non-payment of monies (wages) and says it was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.