Case 3302280/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Noor v Sam Boggis — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302280/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Noor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs B Noor commenced proceedings on 19 February 2022, stating that she had been employed by Sam Boggis between 31 August 2019 and 5 September 2019 and that she had not been paid her wages. The respondent's response said it had tried to pay her, but she did not wish to be paid by the method available and contact had later been difficult.
The tribunal corresponded with the claimant several times, asking whether she wished to withdraw the claim, explaining that the Employment Tribunal had no powers of enforcement, and requiring her to explain the legal basis for bringing the matter in the Employment Tribunal rather than the County Court. The claimant's replies were described as unclear, and when asked again to pursue enforcement proceedings in her local County Court, she said she had submitted a County Court enforcement to Croydon Council and was waiting to hear further.
The tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to enforce any award made to the claimant by another Employment Tribunal. On that basis, and because there was no jurisdiction to deal with the matters the claimant wanted resolved, the proceedings were struck out; the reasons section also states that the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a rule 60/no-hearing decision striking out the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. The claimant had said she had not been paid wages and had previously been awarded compensation, but the tribunal held it had no power to enforce any award made by another Employment Tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
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.