Case 2207632/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Babatunde v Acas — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207632/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms O Babatunde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a case management hearing on 24 March 2023 before Employment Judge Nicolle, Ms O Babatunde confirmed that the sum of £462.20 originally claimed as an unlawful deduction from wages had been reimbursed by ACAS in May 2022. She explained that her concern was instead that ACAS's application of its sick pay policy might affect her entitlement to sick pay in future periods of sickness absence over the next four years.
The tribunal told the claimant that this concern did not appear to give rise to an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. It ordered her to provide reasons why the claim should continue, referring to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
No reasons were provided by the deadline, and the tribunal struck out the unauthorised deduction from wages claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that all remaining elements of the claim continued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant confirmed that the £462.20 originally claimed had been reimbursed in May 2022. The tribunal held that her remaining concern about future sick pay entitlement did not appear to provide scope for an unauthorised deduction from wages claim and struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a) 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.