Case 3202462/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jorge Martins v PixiPixel Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202462/2019
- Decision date
- 6 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jorge Martins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 16 March 2020, the claimant was ordered to pay a £50 deposit, and the order was sent to him on 8 April 2020. The tribunal recorded that the deposit was not paid. In the judgment dated 6 July 2020, Employment Judge Lewis Date struck out the claimant’s race discrimination allegations that he was required to order his own tachograph cards, was not given a pay rise in March 2019, and had training costs recouped from his final pay slip.
The tribunal also struck out the unlawful deduction from wages claims relating to the £649.58 deduction from the final pay slip for training costs and the allegation that he was not paid full pay instead of SSP after a period of sickness absence. The judgment states that these claims were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the deposit had not been paid.
The judgment separately states that the remaining issue to be determined was the complaint that the claimant was less favourably treated because of his race by being paid SSP during his illness from 17 June 2019 until his effective date of termination. The judgment does not determine that remaining issue and says a hearing date would be notified in due course. No monetary award is made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Allegation that he was required to order his own tachograph cards; struck out after the £50 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that he was not given a pay rise in March 2019; struck out after the £50 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that training costs were recouped from his final pay slip; struck out after the £50 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that the deduction of £649.58 from his final pay slip for training costs was an unlawful deduction; struck out after the £50 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that failure to pay full pay instead of SSP after a period of sickness absence was an unlawful deduction; struck out after the £50 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss 6, 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2020
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.