Case 1300988/2019 · Employment Tribunal
no attendance For the v Sandwell Garages Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300988/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
no attendance For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham on 17 January 2020 before Employment Judge Dean sitting alone. Neither side attended. The judgment records that Miss L Stevens brought complaints against Sandwell Garages Limited (in voluntary liquidation), including an unlawful deduction from wages complaint and a protective award complaint.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because they were not presented in time. It also found that it was not reasonably practicable to present a complaint within the time limits provided by section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The complaints were dismissed. No monetary award was made, and the written record notes that oral reasons had been given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment refers to section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; this is treated as the unlawful deduction from wages complaint. The tribunal dismissed it because it was presented out of time and it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the relevant time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under section 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, i.e. the protective award complaint. It was dismissed on the same time-limit basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- s.11 ERA 1996 time limit
- s.192 TULRCA 1992 time limit
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.