Case 2424264/2017 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Mr A Dempsey — 2018
- Case reference
- 2424264/2017
- Decision date
- 16 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 29 March 2018, Employment Judge Warren held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear three matters in this case: a claim of unlawful deduction of wages, a claim that the time limit in section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 was unconstitutional, and a request that the respondent be ordered to recuse the appeals officer in the internal disciplinary hearing.
The judgment records no findings on the substance of any claim and no monetary award. It is a jurisdiction-only decision, with oral reasons given at the hearing and written reasons available on request.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the time limit in section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 was unconstitutional; the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the respondent should be ordered to recuse the appeals officer in the internal disciplinary hearing; the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.