Case 2414845/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Cass v GovData Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414845/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Cass
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 29 July 2022, Employment Judge McDonald considered three claims raised by Mr S Cass against Govdata Ltd: a notice pay/wrongful dismissal claim, an expenses-related breach of contract claim, and a claim for unpaid wages. Mr Cass confirmed that he withdrew the first two claims. The tribunal applied rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and, because he said he wished to consider bringing civil claims and the only bar in the tribunal was time, it did not issue judgments dismissing those withdrawn claims.
The remaining claim was for unlawful deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge found that the last possible deduction in the series was 31 March 2021, so the primary three-month time limit expired on 30 June 2021. The tribunal accepted Mr Cass's evidence that he did not start the claim by that date because he believed the respondent's assurance that the money would be paid in his final pay packet on 30 June 2021, and held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary period.
The claim nevertheless failed because Mr Cass did not bring it within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable. The judge found that from 30 June, or at latest 1 July 2021, he should have made enquiries and contacted ACAS; even allowing time to do so, the claim should have been brought by the end of July 2021. He did not contact ACAS until 24 September 2021, after speaking to a solicitor on 23 September 2021, so the claim was out of time and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay/wrongful dismissal claim was withdrawn. The tribunal did not dismiss it because Mr Cass said he wished to consider bringing a further civil claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Expenses-related breach of contract claim was withdrawn. The tribunal noted that expenses are excluded from 'wages' for ERA unlawful deduction purposes and that any such claim would need to be pursued, if at all, as a contract claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim dismissed as out of time. The tribunal accepted it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim by 30 June 2021, but found it was not brought within such further period as was reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch and ors
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
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.