Case 1600301/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR JOHNS (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Mr. Islam- Choudhury — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600301/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR JOHNS (COUNSEL) FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two claims brought by Miss T Brown against Swansea Mind: an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a claim for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Act. It found that neither claim had been presented within the relevant three-month time limit.
On the dismissal claim, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within time. For that reason, and by reason of section 111(2) ERA 1996, it said the claim could not be considered, had no reasonable prospects of success, and was struck out. On the wages claim, the tribunal reached the same limitation conclusion, finding it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months of the wage payment. It therefore struck out that claim under section 23(2) ERA 1996. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996; the tribunal found it was not presented within three months, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and struck it out under section 111(2) ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 ERA 1996; the tribunal found it was not presented within three months, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and struck it out under section 23(2) ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23(2) ERA 1996
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.