Case 3312829/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Said Mezali v Shorterm Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312829/2021
- Decision date
- 25 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Attendance
- Venue
- Watford Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Said Mezali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tobin heard the matter at Watford on 10 June 2022 in a hybrid hearing. The judgment recorded that the claimant’s claims for outstanding wages and non-payment of expenses had already been dealt with in Manchester County Court proceedings under claim no. D6QZ89NR.
The tribunal refused the claimant’s complaint about an itemised pay statement. It held that the wages and expenses said to be payable arose from the orders made in the county court proceedings, and that in those circumstances the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an order under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Proceedings were dismissed and no financial award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint about an itemised pay statement under s8 Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to make an order; the underlying wages and expenses issues had already been dealt with in Manchester County Court proceedings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.