Case 2406370/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Aaron De Silva v Property Legal (Manchester) Ltd. t/a PLS Solicitors — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406370/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hill REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Aaron De Silva
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester by CVP on 2 February 2021, Employment Judge Hill heard Mr Aaron De Silva’s claims against Property Legal (Manchester) Ltd t/a PLS Solicitors. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed that claim.
The judgment also recorded that the complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and all complaints relating to unpaid wages were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The respondent confirmed that it would not apply for costs, so no costs were awarded. The written record noted that reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would not be provided absent a request.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant; the judgment does not specify the protected characteristic. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | All complaints relating to unpaid wages were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.