Case 2204512/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Francine Mabinda v Chantal Furst — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204512/2021
- Decision date
- 8 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Francine Mabinda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFrancine Mabinda brought a claim against Chantal Furst for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard at London Central on 8 February 2022 before Tribunal Judge Plowright, acting as an Employment Judge. The respondent did not attend.
The tribunal decided that the complaint had not been brought within the three month time limit required by section 23(2) to (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint within that time limit.
On that basis, the unlawful deduction from wages claim was held to be out of time and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint under section 13 ERA 1996 was presented outside the three month time limit in section 23(2) to (4) ERA 1996. It found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the complaint in time, so the claim was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(2)-(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable time limit test
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.