Case 6017664/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen McNicholas v Camerons Stiff Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017664/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen McNicholas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of wrongful dismissal, detriment contrary to s 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, unlawful deductions from wages, and victimisation against Camerons Stiff Ltd.
The tribunal dismissed all four claims for want of jurisdiction because they had been brought out of time. The short written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and does not provide further findings or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, having been brought out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as detriment contrary to s 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, or whistleblowing detriment. It was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, having been brought out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, having been brought out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, having been brought out of time. The judgment does not state a protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.