Case 2208797/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Nakanojo UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208797/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Lela was employed by Nakanojo UK Ltd from 19 October to 19 December 2021. She contacted ACAS on 1 November 2022, obtained a certificate on 10 November, and presented her ET1 on 12 November 2022. Her claims were for unpaid wages of £915.71 said to be due on 7 December 2021 and for two acts of race discrimination said to have occurred during November 2021. The tribunal identified limitation dates of 6 March 2022 for the wages complaint and 28 February 2022 for the race complaint.
For the wages complaint, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory period, or that the further delay was reasonable. The tribunal noted the respondent's director had only just discovered that the claimant's wages had bounced back into the company account because her own account had closed on 15 December 2021 due to identity fraud, and he apologised and undertook that the claimant would be paid the sum due within 28 days from his own pocket. The tribunal stated that, if it had needed to decide the time-extension issue, it would have reached the same conclusion.
On the race discrimination complaints, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been in Italy after being denied entry to the UK on 25 November 2021, had experienced financial stress from non-payment of wages, and had received medical treatment for a period. However, she accepted that she had been unaware of the three-month time limit, had access to the internet while in Italy, and could have checked the position or contacted ACAS online. The tribunal found that ignorance of the law was insufficient, that she could have acted during 2022, and that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent because the restaurant had closed on 16 January 2023, was in liquidation, staff were long gone, and witness evidence would be difficult to obtain. The tribunal therefore refused to extend time as just and equitable, held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the race claims, and struck out all of the claimant's claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present in time or that any further delay was a reasonable period. The tribunal noted the respondent's director had just discovered that the claimant's wages had bounced back into the company account because her own account had closed on 15 December 2021 due to identity fraud, and he undertook to pay the sum due within 28 days, but no tribunal award was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Presented out of time under section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal accepted the claimant had been in Italy after being denied entry to the UK on 25 November 2021, had access to the internet there, and could have checked the time limit or contacted ACAS online. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable 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.