Case 2303613/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2303613/2019
Decision date: 11 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Nash

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Nash sitting alone, on the papers and oral submissions only. The tribunal granted permission to amend the pleadings, held that the claims against the third and fourth respondents had been validly accepted after ACAS early conciliation, and rejected the respondents' strike-out and deposit applications in relation to the constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims, subject to one race allegation from October 2017 being struck out.

On the section 13 wages claim, the tribunal accepted that the last deduction relied on, for 84p in June 2019, was in time. It found that the earlier alleged deductions were out of time and that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that it had not been reasonably practicable to present those claims in time. Applying the same reasoning, the holiday pay aspect was struck out because the claimant identified only 2018 and earlier deductions, with no in-time holiday pay deduction capable of forming part of a series.

The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications in relation to the constructive unfair dismissal claim were refused. The tribunal noted that the claimant started work on 4 June 2017 for the second respondent, moved to the first respondent in September 2018, and that the respondent's own ET3 treated the employment with the first and second respondents as continuous. On that basis, it could not be said that the claimant had no or little reasonable prospect of establishing the required continuous service.

The race discrimination application was refused save for the October 2017 allegation. The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of that allegation forming part of a continuing act because it related to a different employment. For the remaining allegations, it considered that there was at least a realistic prospect that they formed part of a continuing course of conduct, and it said the lack of detailed particulars could be dealt with by case management rather than strike out at this stage. No final merits decision or compensation award was made at this hearing.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Strike-out and deposit applications were refused for most of the claim. The allegation said to have occurred in October 2017 was struck out because it related to a different employment.	Other	Race	—
Constructive dismissal	The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications were refused. The tribunal held that, on the papers, the claimant could not be said to have little or no reasonable prospect of establishing the two years' continuous service required for the claim.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The strike-out application was granted for the out-of-time deductions, but the claim survived in respect of an 84p deduction in June 2019, which the tribunal treated as in time.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal struck out the holiday pay aspect of the section 13 claim. It found there was no in-time holiday pay deduction and therefore no basis for a timely series of deductions.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

12 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.