Case 2305770/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Gnanajeyarajah v Wemmis Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305770/2020
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr F Gnanajeyarajah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an unauthorised deduction from wages claim on 28 September 2020. The tribunal recorded that his employment ended on 6 May 2019, so the claim was brought very significantly out of time. The hearing was listed as a preliminary hearing to decide jurisdiction, and the claimant had been ordered to provide a witness statement explaining why the claim had not been presented in time.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and did not contact the tribunal or the respondents beforehand. He also did not provide the witness statement that had been directed. The tribunal decided to proceed in his absence, noting that he had been sent the hearing bundle by the Second Respondent and had been chased for his witness statement by both the First and Second Respondents.
The tribunal held that the burden was on the claimant to show that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time, and found that he had failed to do so and had also failed to comply with the tribunal's order. The claim was therefore dismissed against all respondents for want of jurisdiction because it had been brought out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing on jurisdiction/time limit. The tribunal dismissed the claim against all respondents because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.