Case 2207400/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Hack v Coffee #1 Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207400/2021
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Hack
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Norris, sitting alone at Central London on 1 April 2022, dealt with the Claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. The Tribunal recorded that the complaint had been brought out of time, that the Claimant did not pay the deposit order, and that there was no application before the Tribunal to amend the claim.
On that basis, the claim was struck out under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The Tribunal also noted, for the avoidance of doubt, that there had been no complaint of breach of contract before it and that nothing in the decision should be read as preventing the Claimant from pursuing such a claim in the County Court if she chose to do so.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was brought out of time, the Claimant did not pay the deposit order, and there was no application to amend the claim; the Tribunal struck it out under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 39(4)
- Schedule 1, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.