Case 1800991/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Earnshaw v I-Motion (Rotherham) Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800991/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moxon Representation
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Earnshaw
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 1 November 2024, Employment Judge Moxon dealt with Mr M Earnshaw's claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, failure to pay notice pay, and failure to pay holiday pay. The tribunal found that those claims were not presented in time, and that Mr Earnshaw had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present them within the applicable time limit.
The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider those three claims, so they were not determined on the merits. The judgment stated that it did not affect the separate judgment of 30 August 2024 in which the claimant's redundancy pay claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim was not presented in time; tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay claim was not presented in time; tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay claim was not presented in time; tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.