Case 3204134/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Westen v Deicors (Blackstone International Group) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204134/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Westen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal could not proceed because it lacked jurisdiction under section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, and that claim was struck out. The judgment did not identify any further factual findings on the dismissal issue beyond the jurisdiction point.
By contrast, the Tribunal said it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. Because the Respondent had not entered a response, judgment was entered under Rule 21. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages.
The judgment did not fix the amount due on the unlawful deduction claim. It stated that the remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint, and under Rule 21 entered judgment because the Respondent did not present a response. It found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages; remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21
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.