Case 1801447/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Close Brothers Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801447/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Donna Hunt brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against Close Brothers Limited. The tribunal held that the claim was brought more than three months after the deduction was made. It found that the claimant had not satisfied the tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within that period and that it was then brought within a reasonable period thereafter.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unauthorised deductions claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claim was dismissed. The judgment also records that the employer’s contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim was presented more than three months after the deduction and that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time and then within a reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the employer’s contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months
- brought within a reasonable period thereafter
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.