Case 2204381/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Nakatani v WM College and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204381/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr S Nakatani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Norris, sitting alone via CVP on 2 November 2021, held that the Third Respondent was the Claimant’s employer. The claims were struck out against the other three Respondents because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
The Claimant’s holiday pay claim from 2013 was presented out of time. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time and that time would not be extended, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The tribunal found that the Claimant’s complaint about the failure to provide an itemised payslip before or at the time of payment for TOIL paid in June 2021 was well-founded. A declaration was made under section 12(3)(a) ERA 1996.
The separate claim for £25.19, being the income tax deduction from the TOIL payment, failed. The tribunal held that it was not an unnotified deduction within section 12(4) and/or 12(5) ERA 1996. The judgment recorded reasons orally at the hearing and did not set out any monetary award beyond the figure claimed for the failed deduction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim from 2013 was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and time was not extended, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide an itemised payslip before or at the time of payment for TOIL paid in June 2021; the tribunal made a declaration under s.12(3)(a) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for £25.19, being income tax deducted from the TOIL payment, failed because it was not an unnotified deduction within s.12(4) and/or s.12(5) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- s.12(3)(a) ERA 1996
- s.12(4) and/or s.12(5) ERA 1996
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.