Case 3302663/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jose Almeida v Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302663/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jose Almeida
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal by video on 23 October 2023 before Employment Judge Armstrong. By consent, the respondent's name was amended to Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd. The judgment record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Mr Almeida's holiday pay claim, described in the judgment as a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages / working time regulations, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary award was made in relation to that claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service at the effective date of termination. The wrongful dismissal claim, described as breach of contract, was dismissed because it had been presented out of time and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment records no remedy or compensation.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment records this as a claim for holiday pay (unauthorised deductions from wages / working time regulations) and says it was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal (breach of contract); dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.