Case 3202406/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Roberts v BSM Packaging Supplies Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202406/2020
- Decision date
- 6 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 January 2021, the tribunal warned the claimant that the claim might be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, because it was highly likely that by the end of his employment he had been paid all money due, because he failed to attend the hearing on 11 January 2021 and failed to notify the tribunal or the respondent that he would not attend, because he had not provided documents or statements supporting his allegation that the respondent withheld holiday pay or furlough pay, and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations in response, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Crosfill therefore struck the claim out on 6 March 2021. The judgment records no liability finding on the underlying pay allegations and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The reasons refer to the claimant's allegation that the respondent withheld holiday pay. The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole and did not separately determine liability on this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons also refer to alleged furlough pay being withheld and state that, by the end of employment, it was highly likely the claimant had been paid all money due. The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole without a merits finding on this head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no 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.