Case 2301754/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kwame Francis v Oaks Estate Agents — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301754/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kwame Francis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khalil, sitting alone at London South on 19 May 2023, declined jurisdiction over the claimant's claims for unauthorised decisions, holiday pay and breach of contract. The tribunal found those claims had been presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, so the tribunal did not go on to determine them on the merits.
The tribunal also declined jurisdiction over the age discrimination claim. It found that the claim was presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010. Reasons were given at the time, and written reasons were only to be provided if requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment text says 'unauthorised decisions'; this appears to be a transcription error, and the claim is mapped here to unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal declined jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal declined jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, with reference to Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal declined jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, with reference to the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal declined jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.7 Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.