Case 2405341/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Moundanga v Assist Resourcing UK Ltd Heard : Via CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405341/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Moundanga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Eeley sat alone at a hearing via CVP on 25 June 2021. The judgment dealt with two preliminary issues only. It records that the claimant was represented in person and the respondent by a solicitor.
The claimant's unauthorized deductions from wages claim, described as relating to underpaid wages in the period up to and including 23 November 2019, was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal held that the claim had been presented outside the statutory time limit in section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996, found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to comply with the time limit, and declined to extend time under section 23(4).
The claimant's race discrimination claim, relating to unpaid £50 'stand down' fees for cancelled shifts, was not struck out under rule 37(1)(a) or (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Instead, the tribunal made that claim subject to a separate deposit order dated 25 June 2021. This judgment does not record any merits finding on the discrimination allegation or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorized deductions from wages relating to underpaid wages in the period up to and including 23 November 2019. The tribunal held it was presented outside the section 23 ERA 1996 time limit, found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have complied with the time limit, and declined to extend time under s.23(4). | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim concerning unpaid £50 'stand down' fees for cancelled shifts. The tribunal declined to strike it out under rule 37(1)(a) or (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and made it subject to a separate deposit order dated the same day; no merits determination is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.