Case 3310762/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person, assisted by Mrs. Richards For First v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310762/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person, assisted by Mrs. Richards For First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal consolidated case numbers 3310762/2022 and 3311683/2022 because the claimant had issued separate claims after receiving ACAS certificates at different times. It struck out, as duplicates and an abuse of process, the holiday pay complaint in 3310762/2022 and the broad AWR complaint in that claim to the extent that they duplicated the claims in 3311683/2022.
The claimant said the arrears of pay and holiday pay had been paid, so those complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. He also maintained a claim about a £500 Christmas bonus or other payment. The tribunal recorded that no substantive whistleblowing claim had been brought, treating the references to PIDA as confusion with the Agency Workers Regulations detriment provisions.
On the AWR issues, the tribunal held that the regulation 5 equal treatment complaint and the regulation 17(2) detriment complaint had reasonable prospects of success and should proceed against both respondents. It struck out the regulation 16 complaint and the regulation 17(1) unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The claimant was allowed to rely on the regulation 16 information issues in support of the regulation 5 claim, and on the absence of work in support of the regulation 17(2) complaint. No monetary award was made at this preliminary hearing; the case was left to be listed for a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim 3310762/2022; duplicated the holiday pay complaint in 3311683/2022 and was struck out as an abuse of process. | Struck out | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Claim 3310762/2022; the broad AWR complaint duplicated the AWR complaints in 3311683/2022 and was struck out as an abuse of process. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay related to underpaid wages; dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant said it had been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid or backdated holiday pay; dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant said it had been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Regulation 16 AWR 2010 complaint; struck out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Regulation 17(1) AWR 2010 complaint; the numbered preliminary issues initially said it had reasonable prospects, but the conclusions strike it out for lack of jurisdiction. The operative outcome followed the conclusions. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonable prospects of success
- abuse of process
- lack of jurisdiction
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.