Case 3200150/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Feagan v Sureclose Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200150/2022
- Decision date
- 23 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Allen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Feagan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Anthony Feagan brought a claim against Sureclose Group Limited for unpaid commission said to be due at 10% in respect of work he brought in for the year ending December 2020, and a separate claim for an unpaid bonus for the year ending December 2021 under his employment contract. The hearing took place by CVP before Employment Judge F Allen on 21 September 2022.
The tribunal struck out the commission claim on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. The judgment records that the tribunal did not dismiss that claim, because it considered that issuing a dismissal would not be in the interests of justice.
The bonus claim was withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award, and no remedy was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid 10% commission for the year ending December 2020. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim and struck it out, but did not dismiss it because it considered that would not be in the interests of justice. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid bonus for the year ending December 2021 under the employment contract. The claimant withdrew this part of the claim and the tribunal dismissed it. | 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.