Case 2302885/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Anne Burton v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302885/2023
- Decision date
- 15 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sekhon Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP at Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Anne Burton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Burton brought claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. She alleged that she was entitled to back pay following a pay deal agreed on 20 March 2023 between the respondent and trade unions, after she had resigned from employment with the respondent.
The tribunal found that the claims were out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for Ms Burton to have presented them within the statutory time limits. It noted that she knew there was an ongoing pay dispute when she resigned, had HR experience and access to advice, and did not take earlier steps to clarify her legal position or preserve a claim.
Because the tribunal concluded that the claims could reasonably have been filed in time, it did not need to decide whether the further delay was reasonable. It held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and struck them out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The preliminary hearing decided jurisdiction and time limits only; the tribunal did not decide the merits of the breach of contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The preliminary hearing decided jurisdiction and time limits only; the tribunal did not decide the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit
- section 27 of the ERA
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.