Case 2304662/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Simester v MCCB Ltd t/a Bright & Beautiful PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304662/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Simester
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Judge Brian Doyle on 18 February 2021. The claimant, Miss R Simester, brought a complaint of unlawful deductions from wages against MCCB Ltd t/a Bright & Beautiful. The tribunal amended the respondent title to reflect the correct legal entity.
The tribunal found that the complaint was not presented before the end of the three-month period beginning with the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within that initial period, as required by section 23(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
However, the tribunal also found that the complaint was not presented within such further period as it considered reasonable, as required by section 23(4). On that basis, the unlawful deductions complaint was dismissed. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dealt with a complaint of unlawful deductions from wages under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed it on limitation grounds under section 23. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) 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.