Case 1402993/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr B Mashumba (in person) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402993/2022
- Decision date
- 2 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Onyenagbaru brought a claim for unpaid wages / unlawful deductions from wages against Mr B Mashumba. The tribunal recorded that she undertook live-in care work in Gloucestershire between 11 and 29 November 2021, and that she was paid £1,000 on 3 December 2021 as an advance pending provision of bank details. On the tribunal's findings, the payment that should have been made was due by 3 December 2021, so the primary limitation date for an unlawful deductions claim was 2 March 2022, subject to any extension for early conciliation.
The claimant notified ACAS on 22 August 2022 and presented her claim on 14 September 2022. The tribunal held that this was about six months out of time and that the claimant did not obtain the benefit of any time extension under section 207B. It found that the only reason advanced for the delay was that she was working away from home, which did not explain why the claim could not have been presented sooner.
Applying the section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and the authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. It noted that she had email and telephone contact details, could have researched the position online or contacted ACAS by phone or online, and could have taken advice. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- 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
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty 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.