Case 2301572/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Stowe v Anil Huseyin Albay t/a Colonels Fish and Chips — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301572/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Stowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 25 July 2024 before Employment Judge Robinson at London South Employment Tribunal, the tribunal determined a preliminary issue on limitation. It held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claims to have been brought within the required time limits.
The tribunal also found that the claims were presented within a further reasonable period afterwards. On that basis, the claims were allowed to proceed to a Final Hearing. This judgment did not determine the underlying merits of the claims and did not award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary time-limit ruling only. The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the required time limit and that it was presented within a further reasonable period afterwards, so it could proceed to a Final Hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary time-limit ruling only. The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the required time limit and that it was presented within a further reasonable period afterwards, so it could proceed to a Final Hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Preliminary time-limit ruling only. The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the required time limit and that it was presented within a further reasonable period afterwards, so it could proceed to a Final Hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- further reasonable period
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.