Case 2300902/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Shareef v Almners (Childcare) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300902/2021
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Shareef
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Shareef brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages arising from an unpaid referral bonus. The tribunal accepted that she had referred a new member of staff to the respondent and that a referral scheme existed. It found that the relevant condition at the time was only that the introducer be in employment when the probationary period was completed, and that the respondent had not proved that any additional condition about being out of notice applied at the material time.
On limitation, the tribunal found the claim was presented after the three-month period had expired, because ACAS was not contacted until 18 February 2021 and the limitation period had expired on 29 January 2021. However, it extended time as just and equitable to do so. In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal took into account the claimant's difficult personal circumstances, her attempts to resolve the matter directly with the respondent, the relatively short delay, and the fact that the ET1 was lodged shortly after the ACAS certificate was issued.
On the substance of the claim, the tribunal preferred the evidence available from the documents over the respondent's position that the bonus was not due because the claimant had left employment before probation ended. It relied on a letter dated 22 September 2020 which extended Miss Azam's probation to 17 October 2020, and found on the balance of probabilities that Miss Azam completed probation on that date. As the claimant's employment ended at the end of October 2020, she was entitled to the referral bonus.
The tribunal found the correct referral bonus was £350. It referred to a later reintroduced scheme showing £350 for the introducer and £150 for the recruit where the new starter was unqualified. It made no finding about any bonus that might have been payable to Miss Azam, as that was outside the scope of the proceedings. Because the respondent did not pay the £350 in the claimant's final pay, the tribunal held that there had been an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of £350 within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was brought about 20 days out of time, but the tribunal extended time on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so. On the merits, the tribunal found a referral bonus of £350 was payable and had not been paid in the claimant's final wages. | Upheld | — | £350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £350
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- three-month limitation period
- just and equitable
- balance of probabilities
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.