Case 2304872/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Smith, Director For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 2304872/2019
Decision date: 4 February 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Balogun Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr D Smith, Director For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered a preliminary issue in 24 British Maintenance Limited's appeal against HMRC's Notice of Underpayment under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The notice was dated 5 September 2019 and was served on 6 September 2019, evidenced by the claimant's signed postal receipt. Section 19C(3) required any appeal to be made within the relevant 28-day period, and the notice stated that the appeal had to be lodged by 6 October 2019.

The appeal was date-stamped as received by the Tribunal on 9 October 2019. The claimant said it had been presented earlier and referred to email evidence, but the email produced was to HMRC rather than the Tribunal, was dated 7 October 2019, and stated that the appeal had been filed by post that day. The tribunal found that this supported the Tribunal receipt date and concluded that the appeal had been presented out of time.

Relying on Bajracharaya t/a Newari Handicraft v The Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs UKEATPA/0796/17/BA, the tribunal held that the Tribunal's general power to extend time under Schedule 1, Rule 5 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 does not apply to section 19C of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It therefore had no power to consider an appeal presented out of time and struck the appeal out for want of jurisdiction.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Appeal against a Notice of Underpayment under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The tribunal found it was presented out of time and therefore struck it out for want of jurisdiction.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.