Case 3201067/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. B. Greenstein v Mr. M. Khan Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201067/2023
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. B. Greenstein
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a final merits hearing on 26 October 2023, heard at East London Hearing Centre via CVP before Employment Judge Tinnion, the Claimant appeared in person and there was no attendance or representation for the Respondent. The claim was pleaded as unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. It found that, during the period of employment relied on (25 April 2022 to 30 December 2022), the Respondent was not the Claimant's employer. It also held that the claim was an abuse of process because the Claimant's claim against his former employer had already been compromised by a COT3 Settlement Agreement reached on 13 January 2023 in ACAS Case No. R281187/2022.
The tribunal further found that the claim was not presented in time. It described the substance of the case as a debt claim arising from an alleged failure by Intrepid LDN Limited to make payments of £1,141.03 on 1 February 2023 and £2,141.03 on 20 February 2023 under the COT3 agreement, rather than a wages claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. No remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.