Case 3313017/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sam Thompson v CSM Property Solutions Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313017/2021
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sam Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Richard Wood at Cambridge on 24 March 2022. Neither party attended, and neither had supplied the bundle or witness statements that Judge Ord had previously directed should be provided. The issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, the respondent having raised whether the claimant was an employee or worker rather than self-employed.
The Tribunal said that the burden was on the claimant to satisfy it that he fell within jurisdiction, namely that he was employed or a worker. Because the claimant did not attend and had provided no evidence, either in a witness statement or by oral testimony, the Tribunal found that he had failed to discharge that burden. The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and the reasons refer to non-compliance with the Rules or a tribunal order and to the claim not being actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' and to the jurisdictional issue; the substantive claim type is taken from the published GOV.UK listing for this case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' and to the jurisdictional issue; the substantive claim type is taken from the published GOV.UK listing for this case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.