Case 2401662/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Smith v Dominick’s Catering Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401662/2020
- Decision date
- 7 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 7 July 2020, Employment Judge Phil Allen considered the respondent's application to strike out all of the claimant's claims. The tribunal gave Mr C Smith an opportunity to explain why the part of his unlawful deduction from wages claim relating to payments due before 2 March 2018 should not be struck out.
The tribunal applied section 23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which limits a complaint to deductions where the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made fell within the two years ending with the date the claim was presented. The claimant's claim was entered on 2 March 2020, so deductions from payments due before 2 March 2018 were outside that period.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make sufficient representations to show why that part of the claim should not be struck out or why it had any reasonable prospect of success. It therefore struck out only the pre-2 March 2018 part of the unlawful deduction from wages complaint.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's remaining claims would proceed to hearing. No monetary remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was struck out only insofar as it related to deductions from payments due prior to 2 March 2018. The tribunal said the claim form was presented on 2 March 2020, so s.23(4A) ERA 1996 limited the tribunal's jurisdiction to deductions within the preceding two years. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23(4A) ERA 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.