Case 2300505/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms Glynis Duffy, Consultant — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300505/2019
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Montenegro brought a claim in respect of unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal accepted his evidence that he had been paid late throughout his employment between January 2017 and 28 September 2018, and that he had raised the non-payment issue with Mr Michaels on at least three occasions, the last being in February 2019. The claim form was not presented until 12 February 2019.
The tribunal applied section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and held that the last possible date for the claim was 28 September 2018, when the employment ended. On that basis the normal time limit expired on 27 December 2018, and the claim was about five weeks late. The tribunal also noted that Mr Montenegro conceded he knew there was a time limit.
Because it concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time under section 23 ERA 1996 and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought it earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- 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.