Case 3310355/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Cross v IJ Facilities Management Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310355/2023
- Decision date
- 4 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Cross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal reconsidered its oral judgment on its own initiative under rule 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. In the reconsidered judgment, it held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that Mr Anthony Cross was not unfairly dismissed under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract complaint concerning expense payments. It held that this claim was not well-founded.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim, brought in relation to one day’s wages on 26 January 2023, was also not well-founded. The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim because it was out of time.
Although the tribunal found as a fact that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars, it held that no award could be made under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had not succeeded in any other claim in the proceedings. The award made at the oral hearing was therefore reconsidered and no section 38 award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint was not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint related to expense payments and was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for one day’s wages on 26 January 2023 was found not well-founded and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction because the claim was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 73 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.