Case 3200941/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr HF Miranda de Mello v OTL Solutions Limited trading as OTL Omega Telemati — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200941/2019
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr HF Miranda de Mello
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Foxwell at East London on 23 August 2019. The Claimant, Mr HF Miranda de Mello, brought claims of unlawful deduction from wages and of being subjected to a detriment contrary to section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 against OTL Solutions Limited trading as OTL Omega Telemati.
The tribunal found that both claims were presented outside the applicable time limits. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claims within the original time limit, but also found that he did not present them within such further period as was reasonable.
On that basis the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear either claim, and both claims were dismissed. No financial remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed at preliminary hearing for being presented outside the time limits; tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but it was still not presented within such further period as was reasonable, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for being subjected to a detriment contrary to section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Dismissed at preliminary hearing on the same time-limit/jurisdiction basis. | 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.