Case 1601193/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Moles v Savers Limted — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601193/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Moles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Moles brought complaints against Savers Limted for unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay, notice pay, direct sex discrimination and harassment. The tribunal did not determine the merits of those complaints because it found the wages, holiday pay and notice pay complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit. On those claims, the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, and dismissed them.
The tribunal also found the direct sex discrimination and harassment complaints were presented outside the applicable time limit. It decided it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints, so they were dismissed as well. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Presented out of time; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Notice pay complaint dismissed as not presented within the applicable time limit; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Presented out of time; tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Presented out of time; tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.