Case 1310725/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Liam Atwal v Seven Resourcing Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1310725/2022
- Decision date
- 7 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cansick Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Liam Atwal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 7 November 2023 before Employment Judge Cansick in Birmingham by CVP, the tribunal considered the claimant's limitation position in relation to his pleaded claims. The claims for unauthorised deduction of wages, breach of contract, and breach of Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were found to have been presented out of time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to have presented those claims in time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear them and struck them out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Breach of Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; presented out of time and struck out because it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Breach of Regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010; presented out of time and struck out because it was not just and equitable to consider the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.