Case 1802780/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Fern v Samy Investments Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802780/2020
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Fern
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by telephone before Employment Judge Shulman on 18 August 2020. The Respondent did not enter a response, did not appear and was not represented. The Tribunal considered claims for unauthorised deduction of wages across three periods, holiday pay, and a pleaded breach of contract point that was not pursued.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim covering 27 August 2019 to 4 November 2019 because it was presented out of time under section 23(2) and (4) Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. It found the claim should have been brought on or about 14 December 2019. The Tribunal noted that the Claimant knew he was still employed during the period, had assistance from USDAW at a hearing on 25 September 2019 and in relation to an email in October 2019, and nevertheless was not advised of the time limit.
The separate claim for two weeks' wages in September 2019 was dismissed because it was encompassed within the claim ending 4 November 2019 and so amounted to a duplicate claim; the Tribunal also held that it was out of time in any event. The holiday pay claim was dismissed because the contract holiday year ran from 1 March to 28 February with no carry-over rights, the Claimant was only five days into the new holiday year when his contract ended, and the alternative suggestion that the holiday year ran from 1 May to 30 April was unsupported by written evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages between 1 January 2020 and 5 March 2020. It found the Claimant was suspended on pay but never paid, that his net weekly pay was £218.13, and that 65 days at £31.08 per day produced an award of £2,020.20. The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant had to take out loans because he was not paid, but no breach of contract claim was pursued.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time under section 23(2) and (4) Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time; it found the claim should have been brought on or about 14 December 2019, and noted that the Claimant had union assistance but was not advised of the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld for the period 1 January 2020 to 5 March 2020. The Tribunal found the Claimant was suspended on pay but never paid, that his net weekly pay was £218.13, and that 65 days at £31.08 per day produced £2,020.20. | Upheld | — | £2,020 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it covered the same period and same point of jurisdiction as the claim ending 4 November 2019, and was out of time in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the holiday year under the contract ran from 1 March to 28 February with no carry-over rights, the Claimant was only five days into the new holiday year when his contract ended, and there was no written evidence of the suggested alternative holiday year. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,020
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23(2) and (4) Employment Rights Act 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.