Case 1400657/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr Bord (Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400657/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol on 8 April 2021, Employment Judge J Bax heard a preliminary issue in the claimant's absence after refusing a postponement application. The tribunal was dealing with an invoice for work done for the respondent between 18 April 2016 and 7 July 2016, later correspondence about an alleged shortfall, and a holiday pay complaint that had not been particularised in the claim form.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew by 17 May 2017 that he had a claim and that there was no physical impediment, misrepresentation, or other reason making it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It noted that the claimant had been paid on 20 January 2017, had emailed on 17 May 2017 saying he had six years to claim, and did not start ACAS early conciliation until 25 January 2020.
For the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal held that the latest relevant payment date was 16 May 2017, so the three-month time limit expired on 17 August 2017. The claim form presented on 3 February 2020 was therefore about 2 years 6 months late, and time was not extended. The tribunal also applied s.23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which in any event prevented it from considering deductions where the payment date was more than two years before presentation.
The tribunal also held that any holiday pay and breach of contract claims, treated as arising no later than the claimant's removal from the respondent's books in September 2017, should have been presented by the end of December 2017. Because those claims were also out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, all claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the latest alleged deduction/payment date as 16 May 2017 and held that the claim presented on 3 February 2020 was about 2 years 6 months out of time. It also found that ACAS early conciliation was started only after the primary limitation period had expired, and that s.23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 barred consideration of deductions where the payment date was more than two years before presentation. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated the unpaid invoice dispute as a possible contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. It held that, on a generous view, the claim should have been presented by the end of December 2017 and was therefore out of time when the claim form was presented on 3 February 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim form ticked holiday pay but gave no details. The tribunal held that any holiday pay claim was out of time, with the primary limitation period expiring by the end of December 2017 on the tribunal's analysis, and that time should not be extended. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- rule 30A Employment Tribunal Rules
- Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth
- O'Cathail v Transport for London
- s.23 ERA 1996
- reg. 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
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.