Case 2303560/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. J. Beard v Sky Retail Stores Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303560/2022
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. J. Beard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at London South by CVP on 18 December 2023 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith. Ms J. Beard appeared in person and Sky Retail Stores Limited was represented by Mr Multani, paralegal.
The tribunal recorded claims of constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages relating to non-payment of bonus. It found that both claims had been presented outside the statutory time limits prescribed by sections 111(2) and 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in circumstances where it had been reasonably practicable for them to be presented within time.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim were therefore dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award and no findings on disability discrimination or sex discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described the claim as constructive unfair dismissal and dismissed it because it was presented outside the time limit under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in circumstances where it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim concerned non-payment of bonus and was dismissed because it was presented outside the time limit under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in circumstances where it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.