Case 2403385/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Dr I Zakria v Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2403385/2018
- Decision date
- 6 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr I Zakria
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Dr I Zakria, was employed by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust as a Consultant in Emergency Medicine from 7 January 2013 until his employment ended by resignation with notice on 31 October 2017. He was in dispute with the respondent about payment of a particular allowance, and grievance proceedings were ongoing when his employment ended. His claim form ticked boxes for arrears of pay and other payments, which the tribunal treated as a claim under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning protection of wages.
The tribunal found that the claimant's last payslip for the period ending 31 October 2017 showed a payment date of 27 October 2017. Applying section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the time limit ran from the date of payment of the wages from which the alleged deduction was made, not from the last day of employment. The limitation date was therefore 26 January 2018, and early conciliation did not extend that date because it had concluded before the payment date. The claim form was received on 30 January 2018.
The claimant submitted that he had raised the dispute during employment, that the grievance process was completed only after his departure, and that the month for which payment was made should be used as the reference point rather than the payment date. The tribunal held that his written submissions did not provide information enabling it to be satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within time. The unlawful deductions claim was dismissed as out of time, with no remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was presented out of time. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the alleged deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable under s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Poulter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] IRLR 271
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.