Case 2200407/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Boucetta v Capitals Protections Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200407/2022
- Decision date
- 23 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Boucetta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by Tribunal Judge McGrade sitting alone at London Central by video on 15 December 2022. The claimant, Mr C Boucetta, appeared in person and the respondent, Capitals Protections Ltd, was represented by W Ahmad, director.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented outside the 3 month time period. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the complaint.
The tribunal applied the same approach to the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It found that this claim was also presented outside the 3 month time period, that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the complaint. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the 3 month time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented outside the 3 month time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- 3 month time period
- 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.