Case 2417078/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Oyeniyi v New Focus Healthcare — 2020
- Case reference
- 2417078/2019
- Decision date
- 10 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Oyeniyi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Oyeniyi worked for New Focus Healthcare on a casual basis in January and February 2019 as a carer. She said she had difficulty obtaining payment for the shifts worked, was eventually paid £391 on 29 February 2019, and calculated that this left £881 outstanding. She declined to work further shifts and brought a tribunal claim for the money she said was due.
The tribunal dealt first with limitation. It found that the relevant date for payment was 29 February 2019, that early conciliation began on 29 April 2019 and ended with a certificate dated 24 May 2019, and that the claim was not submitted until 27 December 2019. On that basis, the claim should have been presented by 24 June 2019 at the latest and was over six months late.
The tribunal accepted Miss Oyeniyi’s evidence that she knew she could bring a tribunal claim for unpaid wages but did not know the time limit, and that she had tried to resolve matters by email while also being busy with full-time employment and her acting career. It applied the strict statutory test for extension of time, asking whether it had been "not reasonably practicable" to present the claim in time, and concluded that it was practicable for her to do so.
Because the claim was out of time and no extension was justified, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unpaid wages claim and dismissed it. The decision was made with expressed sympathy for the claimant, but no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit in s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant said she had been paid £391 on 29 February 2019 but believed a further £881 remained unpaid. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not 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.