Case 6025741/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sullivan v Openreach Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6025741/2025
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Sullivan brought a claim against Openreach Limited for unlawful deduction from wages. The hearing was held in public by video at London East Hearing Centre on 5 December 2025 before Employment Judge Moor, with Mr Sullivan appearing in person and Mrs Hanmer appearing for the respondent.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim because it had no power to consider it under section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the claim was not presented within three months beginning with the date of the last deduction.
The Tribunal also found that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claim within that initial time limit. However, it concluded that he did not present the claim within such further period as the Tribunal considered reasonable. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found the claim was not presented within three months of the last deduction; although it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, it was not presented within such further period as the Tribunal considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 27 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.