Case 3201323/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mayele v Hovis Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201323/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Scott Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mayele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment on the Respondent's application to strike out Mr M Mayele's claim against Hovis Limited. Employment Judge Scott recorded that the strike out application failed, so the claim was not struck out.
The judge also found that the Claimant's claim had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered Mr Mayele to pay a deposit of £50.00 as a condition of being permitted to continue to advance the claim. The judgment does not make any final finding on liability or compensation.
The hearing of the Claimant's claim was postponed to 24 April 2024 at 10am, to proceed in person for three hours. No merits remedy was awarded in this judgment beyond the deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not state the substantive cause of action in the excerpt; the claim type is classified using the case listing/context as unlawful deduction from wages. This was a preliminary decision on strike out and deposit, not a final merits determination. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- little reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.