Case 2204988/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For 2nd and 3rd Claimants: No appearance For the v Ms H Hutchinson, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 2204988/2018
- Decision date
- 30 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For 2nd and 3rd Claimants: No appearance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a case management and limitation decision in three linked arrears-of-pay matters, heard on 12 April 2019 before Employment Judge Russell sitting alone. The tribunal added Kilmurray Construction Ltd as Second Respondent. It refused the First Respondent's application to strike out the claims for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue them, accepting that the Claimants had not been deliberately ignoring the orders and that the difficulties were mainly caused by language and understanding issues.
The tribunal accepted that the Claimants had been confused about which company was responsible for the alleged wage debt. It found that Lindner Interiors had paid Kilmurray as contractor and that Kilmurray may then have failed to pay wages due to the Claimants. The First Claimant had initially named different respondents because he had been misled about who owed the debt, and the tribunal considered that the confusion about the structure of the companies and the conflicting advice given to them explained why the proceedings had not been directed correctly at an earlier stage.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the wages claims before February 2018 were out of time and struck them out. It also held that the Claimants had filed a complaint within time, had approached ACAS about the relevant complaints within time, and had obtained a further Early Conciliation Certificate correctly naming the First Respondent shortly afterwards. The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimants to have done more before then, and that there was no prejudice to Lindner from the short delay.
The result was that only the alleged underpayment from mid-February 2018 and mid-May 2018 remained live, with time extended so that the case could proceed. The tribunal stated that the confusion as to where the indebtedness lay should not enable either Respondent to escape liability and that the claims should be heard so that any unlawful deduction of wages could be determined in due course.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal allowed the Respondent's limitation-based strike-out application only in respect of alleged underpayments prior to February 2018. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The alleged underpayment from mid-February 2018 and mid-May 2018 was not finally determined at this hearing; time was extended and the claim was allowed to continue subject to further orders. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not 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.