Case 1400746/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person with Mr M Gahan for support For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400746/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Scarborough Justice Centre
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person with Mr M Gahan for support For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Davies heard the case at Scarborough Justice Centre on 13 and 14 October 2021. The claimant, who appeared in person with support from Mr M Gahan, brought a breach of contract complaint about being suspended from sea duties in May 2019 and complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages connected with overtime.
The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was still employed. It held that contract claims in the Tribunal under the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994 can only be brought if they arise or are outstanding on termination of employment.
The tribunal also dismissed the overtime deduction complaints up to and including 21 October 2019 as out of time under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996, finding that it was reasonably practicable to present them within the limitation period. It noted that, in relation to overtime worked on 9 December 2019, the claimant was not complaining that the wages paid were less than the wages properly payable.
The remaining unauthorised deduction complaint was resolved on agreed settlement terms. The judgment records that either party could apply by 11 November 2021 if there was any issue with implementing the agreement, and that if no application was made by that date the remaining complaint would be dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint about suspension from sea duties in May 2019; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was still employed and Tribunal contract claims under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order can only be brought if they arise or are outstanding on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaints about overtime worked up to and including 21 October 2019; dismissed as out of time under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal said it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time. It also recorded that the 9 December 2019 overtime issue was not a complaint that wages paid were less than properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The remaining unauthorised deduction complaint was resolved on agreed settlement terms. The judgment says either party could apply by 11 November 2021 if there was any issue implementing the agreement, and if no application was made by then the complaint would be dismissed on withdrawal. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.