Case 2404294/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Baiden, Mr McMaster and Ms Meehan v Mr F Ahmed — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404294/2023
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Baiden, Mr McMaster and Ms Meehan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Baiden, Mr McMaster and Ms Meehan brought claims against Mr F Ahmed for unlawful deduction from wages and for failure to provide itemised pay statements. The hearing was by CVP before Employment Judge Cookson on 11 August 2023. The tribunal recorded that the claimants were in person and that the respondent was in person.
The tribunal held that the complaints were not presented within the time limits in sections 11 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have brought their claims within three months of the last alleged unlawful deduction, or the end of employment as applicable.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that the claims were not lodged within a reasonable time after it became reasonably practicable to do so. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaints were out of time under sections 11 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had no jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This was the claim relating to failure to provide itemised pay statements. The tribunal held it was out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 11 and 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable time period after it became reasonably practicable
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.