Case 3200487/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Mauleon v Unified Payroll and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200487/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeny Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Mauleon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the CVP hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 1 February 2023. The Second Respondent also did not attend.
The tribunal dismissed the claim against the Second Respondent due to lack of jurisdiction. The claim against the First Respondent was struck out pursuant to rule 37(1)(d). No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out separate reasons by claim type. The gov.uk listing identifies unfair dismissal; the judgment records that the claim against the First Respondent was struck out under rule 37(1)(d), and the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out separate reasons by claim type. The gov.uk listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages; the judgment records that the claim against the First Respondent was struck out under rule 37(1)(d), and the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.