Case 2402350/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(X) v (Y) (Z) HELD AT: Liverpool — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402350/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(X)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unauthorised deductions complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present that complaint in time, so the complaint failed on limitation grounds.
The tribunal also dismissed the discrimination and harassment complaints because they were not presented within the applicable time limit. It found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were dismissed without any remedy being awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the discrimination complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed with the discrimination complaint on the same limitation ground; the tribunal said the complaint was not presented in time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.