Case 2305084/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Blake Feather (2) Mr Warren Feather v Banh Bao Brothers Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305084/2021
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Carney Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Blake Feather (2) Mr Warren Feather
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at the London South Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge Carney on 28 and 29 September 2022. It concerned unlawful deduction from wages complaints brought by Mr Blake Feather and Mr Warren Feather against Banh Bao Brothers Limited.
The tribunal held that Mr Blake Feather's complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been lodged within time and therefore said it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim.
Mr Warren Feather's unlawful deduction from wages complaint was found not well founded and failed. His application for strike out of the respondent's response under Rule 37(1)(b) and/or Rule 37(1)(c) was refused. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no separate written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant 1's unlawful deduction from wages complaint was lodged outside the statutory time limit. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider it because it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been lodged within time. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant 2's unlawful deduction from wages complaint was found not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- Rule 37(1)(b) and/or Rule 37(1)(c)
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.