Case 1405484/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sutton v The Best Connection Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405484/2023
- Decision date
- 29 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Sutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Sutton, brought a claim against The Best Connection Group Limited for unlawful deductions from wages, described in the judgment as holiday pay under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal heard the case at Bristol by video on 10 May 2024 before Employment Judge Bradford, sitting alone.
The claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that it had been brought outside the three-month time limit in section 23 ERA 1996 and found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the relevant time period. No substantive holiday pay entitlement was determined because the limitation issue disposed of the claim.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual process. The judgment records no monetary award and no other claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages (holiday pay) under s13 ERA 1996 was dismissed as out of time under s23 ERA 1996; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the relevant period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 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.