Case 2402592/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Hughes v Mooreplay Compliance Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402592/2019
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tom Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 3 September 2019, Employment Judge Tom Ryan considered complaints brought by Miss A Hughes against Mooreplay Compliance Ltd. The tribunal gave judgment orally at the hearing, and the written record was sent to the parties on 20 September 2019.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. The complaint of age discrimination was also struck out on the same basis.
The sex discrimination complaint was struck out on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that it had been presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time so that the claim could be considered. No substantive remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out on the ground that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out on the ground that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out because it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.