Case 1403348/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Putnam v Trelleborg Westbury Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403348/2022
- Decision date
- 7 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Daniel Putnam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in which Employment Judge Oliver dealt only with timeliness and case management issues. The tribunal recorded that Mr Putnam was disabled between January 2021 and June 2022, and said that his disability discrimination claim would be considered at the full hearing listed for 18 to 21 December 2023.
The tribunal struck out the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to submit the claim within time. No monetary remedy was awarded because the wages claim did not proceed.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice. The judgment therefore resolves only the preliminary limitation issue and leaves the disability discrimination claim to be determined at the later full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to submit it within time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable to submit the claim within time
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.