Case 3312796/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312796/2021
- Decision date
- 7 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford hearing on 26 July 2022, Employment Judge French struck out the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages because it had been presented out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The Tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s separate claim for compensation for stress.
The Tribunal further held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim for preparation time prior to these proceedings. In addition, it did not award the claimant a preparation time order in respect of these proceedings under s76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the criteria were not met. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages; struck out because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for compensation for stress; the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim for preparation time prior to these proceedings; the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.