Case 3202324/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J D Ball v FIRMA Foreign Exchange Corporation (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202324/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J D Ball
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 4 December 2023 and the respondents failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages, that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, and that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The judgment also recorded that the respondents had failed to comply with the statutory requirements to elect and/or consult with employee representatives.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds and that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. No monetary award is set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment also found that the respondents failed to comply with the statutory requirements to elect and/or consult with employee representatives. The text does not quantify any remedy for this finding in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.