Case 3307740/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Filip v Construction Recruitment Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307740/2023
- Decision date
- 11 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Filip
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Davey sitting by CVP on 9 August 2024. The claimant, Mr C Filip, was in person and the respondent, Construction Recruitment Services Ltd, was represented by Mr S Seevaratnam. No lay members are recorded in the judgment.
The race discrimination claim was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, so the tribunal did not make any substantive findings on the merits of either of those claims.
The unauthorised deduction of wages claim was treated as an out-of-time claim. The tribunal found that it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It further found that, although it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, it was not presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim was dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the race discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit, that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was also not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.