Case 2302470/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Cherie Murphy v Building and Handyman Fulham Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302470/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Cherie Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Cherie Murphy’s claim against Building and Handyman Fulham Ltd was heard by Employment Judge D Wright sitting alone at London South via CVP on 12 January 2023. The written record states that the claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by a litigation consultant.
The tribunal’s only recorded finding was that the claim had been brought outside the time limits set in sections 23 and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the claim was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
The reasons note says the judgment was given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found this part of the claim had been brought outside the time limit in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found this part of the claim had been brought outside the time limit in section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.