Case 3314175/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Beyebenwo, Solicitor For the v Mr Chehal, consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314175/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Beyebenwo, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing in Watford on 16 August 2022 before Employment Judge Allen, the tribunal considered the claimant's claims against AP Security (APS) Ltd. The written judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr Beyebenwo, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr Chehal, consultant.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claims for breach of contract, arrears of pay, notice pay and holiday pay had been filed out of time. On that basis, the claims were struck out on jurisdiction grounds. The decision does not contain any merits findings on the substance of the claims and no monetary award was made.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a breach of contract claim and says it was filed out of time and struck out on jurisdiction grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'arrears of pay'; this is mapped to unlawful deduction from wages and was struck out as out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment separately refers to 'notice pay'; this is mapped to breach of contract and was struck out on jurisdiction grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to a holiday pay claim and says it was filed out of time and struck out on jurisdiction grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
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.