Case 2202775/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202775/2020
- Decision date
- 29 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms K Bilchenkova, brought a claim for unlawful deductions from wages against Resource Solutions Limited. Employment Judge Norris sat alone at Central London on 29 July 2020. The tribunal found that the claim had been presented out of time, but extended time under section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and it was presented within a reasonable period afterwards.
Although time was extended, the tribunal struck out the claim because it had no reasonable prospect of success, applying Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No liability or remedy was determined on the merits, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unlawful deductions from wages claim was presented out of time, but time was extended under section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The claim was then struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a) Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.