Case 3306038/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306038/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim of Mr N Ncube against Rosewood WM10 Services Limited was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 19 January 2024 before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone. The judgment records that the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr Howell, Counsel.
The tribunal struck out the Claimant's claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No further substantive findings on the merits of the claim are set out in the written judgment.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or by written request within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not identify the underlying claim type in the text. This classification follows the case context and GOV.UK listing provided for the case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.