Case 3302752/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Tempesta v Panacea Senior Care and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302752/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams JUDGMENT
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Tempesta
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment issued by Employment Judge Hyams in case 3302752/2020. The Tribunal considered the claim against the second respondent, Ms A Zemianska, and concluded that it had no reasonable prospect of success within rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
By a letter dated 16 December 2020, the Tribunal had invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint against the second respondent should not be struck out. The Tribunal stated that the claim was for unpaid wages and that the second respondent, not being the claimant's employer, could not in law be responsible for any failure to pay the claimant's wages.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations to show why the claim should not be struck out, so the Tribunal struck out the claim against the second respondent. The judgment records that the claim against the first respondent, Panacea Senior Care, remained listed for hearing on Tuesday 9 March 2021. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against the second respondent, Ms A Zemianska, was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity to make representations after indicating that, as the claim was for unpaid wages and the second respondent was not the claimant's employer, she could not in law be responsible for any failure to pay wages. The claimant did not make sufficient representations in response. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.