Case 2402933/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Saiedi v Lunex Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402933/2023
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Saiedi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ficklin sat at Manchester by Cloud Video Platform and heard the case on 16 May 2023. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr S Saiedi, brought claims against Lunex Limited for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages. The respondent was represented by Mr Rafique Malik, director, and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear either claim because both claims were out of time. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the dismissal or the wages complaint. The decision therefore turned entirely on limitation and jurisdiction rather than on the underlying employment issues.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 25 May 2023. It notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to the claimant's unpaid wages claim and held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction because it was out of time. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.