Case 2302244/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gould v National Crime Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302244/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington Appearances
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gould
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims arising from the respondent's application of its Shared Parental Leave policy. He alleged that he was financially disadvantaged in his July 2018 pay and sought sums for 9 weeks of shared parental leave at full pay, time spent dealing with the issue, and the ongoing impact of the matter.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew the relevant time limit and had obtained an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate in 2018, with 5 January 2019 agreed as the last date for presenting the wages claim. The claimant did not present a claim then because he accepted a proposed grievance resolution on 4 January 2019. The tribunal accepted that he did so in good faith, but concluded that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The tribunal also concluded that, even if the primary time limit had not been reasonably practicable to meet, the claim was not presented within a reasonable further period. The later appeal process, the second ACAS certificate, and the claimant's circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic did not alter the conclusion that the June 2020 claim was out of time. The remaining two claimed sums were found not to be claims properly brought as unlawful deductions from earnings, and the claims were struck out in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant sought £5,000 for 9 weeks of shared parental leave at full pay. The tribunal found the alleged deduction related to July 2018 wages and that the claim was presented out of time, so it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claimant sought £1,000 for time spent researching, seeking support and responding to emails while on shared parental leave. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that this was not a claim properly brought as an unlawful deduction from earnings and had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claimant sought £1,500 for time taken and the ongoing impact of dealing with the issue. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that this was not a claim properly brought as an unlawful deduction from earnings and had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 18 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs v Garau
- E.On Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall
- Romero v Nottingham City Council
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.