Case 3200582/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L Sapsford v Fulcrum Engineering & Technical Limited — 2021

Case reference: 3200582/2020
Decision date: 10 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Sapsford

Respondent

Fulcrum Engineering & Technical Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Sapsford brought complaints including age and disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unlawful deductions, and failure to provide rest breaks. The tribunal recorded that he had worked for the respondent on three occasions at Nestlé, that he had raised grievances about working conditions in August and October 2019, and that he contacted ACAS on 16 September 2019 and received an ACAS certificate on 1 October 2019. The claim itself was presented on 20 February 2020.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Part of the discrimination complaints, which the tribunal held were presented out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and therefore did not consider the merits.	Dismissed	Age	—
Disability discrimination	This covered the disability discrimination complaints, including the reasonable adjustments complaint referred to in the reasons. The tribunal held the claim out of time and said it lacked jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held the wages complaint was out of time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore outside its jurisdiction. It also noted that any deduction complaint appeared to lie against the agency paying the claimant rather than the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	The rest-break complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was found to be out of time. The tribunal held it was reasonably feasible for the claim to have been presented within the relevant three-month period.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 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.

Open official judgment 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.