Ms P Gkolfi v Divine Motions Healthcare Services Limited — 2022

Ms P Gkolfi brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against Divine Motions Healthcare Services Ltd. The hearing took place on 6 October 2022 by video. Neither party attended. The tribunal proceeded in their absence under Rule 47 after noting that the hearing notice had been sent to the correct contact details, that the claimant had been telephoned and emailed on the day of hearing, and that no explanation for non-attendance had been provided.

The tribunal found that the claimant worked for the respondent as a carer from June 2020 until the beginning of July 2020, submitted timesheets by email, and expected payment by the end of July 2020. On that basis, the primary limitation period expired on 30 October 2020. The claimant did not present a claim or commence Early Conciliation within that primary period; she began Early Conciliation on 14 November 2020 and received the ACAS certificate on 20 November 2020.

Applying section 23(2) and 23(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with section 207B on the effect of Early Conciliation, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim by 30 October 2020. The tribunal relied on the claimant's own communications chasing payment, her awareness that payment had not been made when due, the absence of any physical restriction preventing a timely claim, and the fact that the burden of proving otherwise was on the claimant, who did not attend or provide evidence. The tribunal also referred to Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan and Porter v Bandridge Ltd.

The tribunal further found that, even if that conclusion were wrong, the claim was not brought within such further period as was reasonable. It noted the additional delay after the primary limit and after issue of the ACAS certificate, and referred to the public interest in prompt presentation of claims, including Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was therefore dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it.