Case 1401111/2020 · Employment Tribunal
- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE v - Written Submissions — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401111/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages by a claim form lodged on 6 March 2020, after ACAS early conciliation dated 6 to 7 January 2020. The claim related to allowances said not to have been paid during a suspension period between 10 April and 13 July 2019. The respondent argued that the claim was out of time and also contended on the merits that the claimant had not performed scheduled attendance overtime and was therefore not entitled to payment for it while suspended.
The tribunal dealt with the matter on the papers and, for the purpose of the limitation issue, accepted the claimant's evidence that medical difficulties meant it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary three-month period. It also accepted that the claimant should not be expected to have considered bringing a claim until the New Year of 2020. However, the tribunal held that once she was able to participate in ACAS early conciliation from 6 January 2020 there was no remaining impediment to presenting a claim.
Applying sections 23 and 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal said that a complaint must be presented within three months, subject to a further period where it was not reasonably practicable to do so earlier. It found that even allowing for the claimant's position, a further delay until 6 March 2020 was not a reasonable period after the end of the impediment. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim as out of time and did not reach the substantive pay issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as presented out of time under sections 23 and 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal did not determine the substantive allowance issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.24 ERA 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.