Case 3314446/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Rose, in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314446/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr O Rose, in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge Hunt on 26 April 2023, considered the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages complaint against OCS Group UK Limited. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear part of the claimant's claim, so that part could not proceed.
The Respondent applied to strike out the remainder of the claim, but that application was refused. The Tribunal nevertheless went on to decide the merits of the remaining complaint and found that the claim of unlawful deduction of wages was not well-founded.
No monetary award was recorded in the judgment. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear part of the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim, refused the Respondent's application to strike out the remainder, and found that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was not well-founded. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.