Case 3305134/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A P Sylva v Focus 4 U Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305134/2022
- Decision date
- 25 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Representation
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A P Sylva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 5 May 2023 before Employment Judge Forde, the tribunal considered the claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payments, wrongful dismissal, and sex discrimination against Focus 4 U Limited. The judgment records that all of those claims had been presented out of time.
Because the claims were out of time, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment then states that the claims were struck out and dismissed. No merits findings or monetary award are recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out and dismissed it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Presented out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out and dismissed it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out and dismissed it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Presented out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out and dismissed it. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.