Case 2409680/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr W Matthaus v Equiniti Solutions Limited and 2 others — 2024

Case reference: 2409680/2023
Decision date: 12 March 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr W Matthaus

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a CVP hearing in Manchester on 28 February 2024 before Employment Judge K M Ross, the claimant appeared in person and the first and second respondents were represented. The judgment records that the relevant employment period was 2 November 2015 to 30 November 2016 and that the claim was presented on 2 October 2023.

The tribunal struck out the unlawful deduction from wages claim and the breach of contract claim because both were presented outside the time limit; for each, it found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The redundancy payment claim was also out of time and, in addition, the claimant had not taken the steps required by section 164(1) Employment Rights Act 1996.

The direct discrimination claims pleaded on race, religion or belief, and sex were struck out because they were outside the time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The harassment claim related to religion or belief and/or race, and the victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010, were also struck out on the same limitation basis. The tribunal refused the application to amend the case to add automatic unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment claims, and the judgment records that all claims were struck out with no award made.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Presented outside the time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore it had no jurisdiction.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Presented outside the time limit under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore it had no jurisdiction.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	The claim was not presented within the time limit and the claimant had not taken the steps required by section 164(1) Employment Rights Act 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Race discrimination	Direct discrimination claim pleaded on race grounds; the written issues included that the claimant was the only ethnic minority within the five moved to Tim Hughes' team. The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Struck out	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Direct discrimination claim pleaded on religion or belief grounds; the tribunal found the claim was presented outside the time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Struck out	Religion or belief	—
Sex discrimination

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.