Case 3313310/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Empowerhouse Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313310/2019
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Heal on 20 January 2020. The claim form had alleged unfair dismissal, race discrimination and unauthorised deductions from wages. The judge recorded that the claimant told the tribunal he had intended to bring wrongful dismissal rather than unfair dismissal, but the claim before the tribunal was treated as one for unfair dismissal.
The respondent had not filed a response by the hearing date, but appeared through counsel. The tribunal noted the service history and the respondent's request for time to deal with the proceedings. The only substantive judgment recorded at this hearing was that the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service.
The tribunal then postponed the matter to 13 March 2020 so that the respondent could make an application for an extension of time to present its response. The case management summary set out issues for a later hearing, including harassment and direct race discrimination, unpaid wages during suspension, and breach of contract concerning dismissal without notice, but the tribunal made no merits findings on those issues in this decision. No remedy was awarded at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the claimant did not have two years' service. The judgment also records that the claimant said he had intended to bring wrongful dismissal instead of unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.