Case 1803093/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ambreen Sarfaraz v Vision Care Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803093/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Elliott
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ambreen Sarfaraz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Leeds Employment Tribunal on 14 July 2023 before Employment Judge G Elliott sitting alone. Neither party attended. The tribunal noted that the respondent had indicated by telephone that it was not aware of the claim and would not attend, and that the claimant had previously been participating but could not be reached on the day. In those circumstances, and having regard to Rule 47 and the overriding objective, the tribunal proceeded in the absence of the parties.
The claimant said she was owed £30 for a shift worked on 7 November 2022, £65 for a DBS check expense, and compensation for a failure to offer further work, including consequential childcare loss of £100 per month for five months. The tribunal implied a reasonable notice period of one week and found, on the balance of probabilities, that the payroll date for the 7 November 2022 shift could be no later than 7 December 2022. The claimant submitted the claim on 11 May 2023 and had made an ACAS reference on 11 March 2023, with the ACAS certificate issued on 22 April 2023.
The tribunal held that the claim was submitted outside the relevant time limit, being more than three months after the effective date of termination and the payroll date. It found no basis for concluding that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and noted that no representations were made on that point or on presentation within a further reasonable period. The claimant had the burden of meeting that test and did not do so, so the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed together with the breach of contract complaint because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and had no jurisdiction to hear it; the claimant did not show that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed together with the unauthorised deduction complaint because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and had no jurisdiction to hear it; the claimant did not show that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47
- Rule 21
- not 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.