Case 6001989/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Anderson v Sbfm — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001989/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages. A previous Rule 27 notice had raised jurisdiction concerns about the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis of res judicata, because the judgment records that the same claim had previously been presented and struck out.
The claimant's representative responded, but the tribunal found that the response did not engage with the jurisdiction issue. Employment Judge Clark struck out the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction.
For the wages complaint, the judgment records that the respondent accepted it owed £2,227.78 and later emailed the tribunal saying it had paid the outstanding sum. The tribunal inferred withdrawal from the claimant's correspondence and dismissed the claim on withdrawal, alternatively striking it out as not actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it, with the judgment referring to a previous presentation and strike out of the same claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on inferred withdrawal by the claimant; alternatively, the judgment stated it would be struck out because it was not being actively pursued. The respondent had accepted and said it paid £2,227.78, but the judgment did not make a monetary award. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- res judicata
- Rule 27
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.