Case 3313365/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Munteanu v Sigma Components (Farnborough) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313365/2022
- Decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Caiden Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Munteanu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Munteanu presented an ET1 on 7 November 2022. The pleaded matters recorded in the judgment were race discrimination, based on his statement that he was Romanian and had been discriminated against by British colleagues, and a pay complaint that he was owed "other payments" and had not received the right pay. The Respondent denied that it had ever employed him and said it had no records of any working relationship.
The case was listed for a preliminary hearing on 7 August 2023 to deal with the Respondent’s strike-out and/or deposit application. The Claimant emailed on 6 August 2023 asking for a postponement because of "medical reasons", but provided no medical evidence or detail, did not attend, and had taken no active part in the proceedings after presenting the ET1. Applying rule 30A of the ET Rules and the authorities it cited, including Phelan v Richardson Rogers Ltd, Andreou, Teinaz and O’Cathail, the Tribunal refused the postponement.
Having refused the postponement, the Tribunal dismissed the claims under rule 47. It noted that the ET1 contained no dates for the alleged acts, no evidence of employment or payment, and no reply to the Respondent’s denial of employment. The Tribunal also recorded that the ACAS representative had indicated the alleged incidents occurred in 2013, which would in any event place the claims well outside time limits, and it found the claims had no reasonable prospects on the evidence before it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | ET1 alleged that the Claimant, a Romanian national, had been discriminated against by British colleagues. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 after the Claimant did not attend and no evidence was provided. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | ET1 stated that the Claimant was owed "other payments" and had not received the right pay. The Tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 in the absence of the Claimant and on the evidence before it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 30A ET Rules
- exceptional circumstances
- overriding objective
- Phelan v Richardson Rogers Ltd [2021] ICR 1164
- Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department [2002] IRLR 728
- Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] ICR 1471
- O'Cathail v Transport for London [2013] ICR 614
- rule 47 ET Rules
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.