Case 3314008/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Matadoors Security Solutions Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314008/2019
- Decision date
- 2 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages were all dismissed. Employment Judge Lang recorded that the respondent, Matadoors Security Solutions Limited, had been dissolved on 21 January 2020.
The tribunal held that, because of that dissolution, it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints. No findings on the merits of the dismissal, redundancy, notice pay, holiday pay or wage deduction issues were made, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the respondent had been dissolved on 21 January 2020 and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the respondent had been dissolved on 21 January 2020 and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Covers the notice pay complaint, which was dismissed on the same jurisdictional basis after the respondent's dissolution. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the respondent had been dissolved on 21 January 2020 and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Covers the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, which was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction after the respondent's dissolution. | 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.
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.