Case 3305915/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paolo Scinto v Werrens Bedford Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305915/2024
- Decision date
- 8 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paolo Scinto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge on 14 February 2025 before Employment Judge Michell sitting alone. The parties did not attend. The tribunal recorded, from the papers and its own enquiries, that the claimant had now been paid any monies due.
The tribunal further noted that the claim was no longer being actively pursued and that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations at the hearing. On that basis, the claim was struck out pursuant to r.38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment itself does not list the underlying heads of claim; case metadata supplied with the file identifies unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out the claim under r.38(1)(d) after noting the claimant had been paid any monies due and the claim was no longer actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment itself does not list the underlying heads of claim; case metadata supplied with the file identifies unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal struck out the claim under r.38(1)(d) after noting the claimant had been paid any monies due and the claim was no longer actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- r.38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.