Case 2200074/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shahzad v Retail Marketing Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200074/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Shahzad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Shahzad brought a claim against Retail Marketing Group for unlawful deduction from wages. Employment Judge Norris recorded that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was submitted out of time under section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and it was reasonably practicable to submit it in time.
The judgment also held that, in any event, section 23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996, as inserted by the Deduction From Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014, prevented the Tribunal from considering any deduction made before the two-year period ending with the date the complaint was presented. The claim was accordingly struck out. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time contrary to section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, it was reasonably practicable to present in time, and section 23(4A) ERA 1996 also prevented consideration of any deduction made before the two-year period ending with presentation of the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Deduction From Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
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.