Case 2413651/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Westmorland and Furness Council and Cumberland Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413651/2023
- Decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an unauthorised deductions from wages claim concerning unpaid wages and pension payments during sickness absence, including the reduction of his pay to nil from 22 March 2023. The last relevant deduction was found to be 9 May 2023, making 8 August 2023 the last date for presenting the claim, and the claimant did not contact ACAS or present his claim within that period.
The Tribunal found that the claimant knew before returning to work on 10 May 2023 that he could bring a claim and that a three month time limit applied. Although he was waiting for advice from his union, the Tribunal found he took limited steps within the time limit and that information about time limits and bringing claims was readily available.
The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought within the required time period. Because the claim was not brought in time, the unlawful deduction from wages claim against the second respondent was dismissed, and the claim against the first respondent was dismissed following withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim against the second respondent was dismissed because it was presented outside the required time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- 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.