Case 1305675/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lloyd Samuels v Howdens Joinery Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305675/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Hussain Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lloyd Samuels
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lloyd Samuels brought claims against Howdens Joinery Limited for unlawful deductions from wages or breach of contract in relation to an unpaid bonus, and for race discrimination. Employment Judge M Hussain decided the case on the papers under rule 60, with no hearing.
Both claims were dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that the unpaid bonus claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. It also found that the race discrimination claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid bonus was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.