Case 3305128/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Cyborg Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305128/2022
- Decision date
- 8 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms A Groenewald, brought claims against Cyborg Group Ltd in the Watford Employment Tribunal. Employment Judge French heard the case on 5 April 2023. The respondent did not attend, and the judgment records that the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of any claim. It struck out the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction because it had been presented out of time, at a point when it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. The tribunal used the same jurisdictional reasoning for the claim of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to arrears of pay.
The holiday pay claim was also struck out for lack of jurisdiction on the same out-of-time basis. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment records no substantive findings on liability beyond the time-limit issue.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and strikes it out for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time, when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages relating to arrears of pay for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that it was presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | 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.