Case 3306562/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Pun v Percivale Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306562/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Pun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. By letter dated 17 May 2023, it gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why those complaints should not be struck out, because it appeared from the claim that he had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims remain extant. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal considered from the claim that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the 17 May 2023 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out for the same reason as the unfair dismissal complaint, following the tribunal's letter of 17 May 2023 and the claimant's failure to make representations or request a hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.