Case 2406565/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fawcett v Writech Industrial Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406565/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fawcett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing in Manchester on 14 November 2022, Employment Judge Warren held that Mr Fawcett's breach of contract claim and holiday pay claim were both out of time, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment also recorded that the respondent's counterclaim could not proceed because there was no contractual claim outstanding.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was held to be in time because it was presented on 24 August 2022 before the limitation period expired on 10 September 2022. The Tribunal then moved into case management, ordering further particulars, disclosure, witness statements, and preparation of the hearing bundle, with the final hearing listed for 3 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract claim was out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim was held to be in time because it was presented on 24 August 2022 before the limitation period expired on 10 September 2022. It was listed for a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was struck out because there was no contractual claim outstanding and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
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.