Case 2500599/2022 · Employment Tribunal
W Slack v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500599/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
W Slack
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant sought a statutory redundancy payment and payments for arrears of pay, holiday pay and notice pay from the Secretary of State following the insolvency of Rapax Ltd. The respondent disputed the claims on time limit grounds and on the basis that the claimant was not an employee, but the preliminary hearing addressed limitation only.
For the arrears of pay, holiday pay and notice pay claims, the Tribunal found the Secretary of State's decision was communicated on 14 January 2022 and the section 188 time limit expired on 13 April 2022. The claim was presented on 10 May 2022. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant relied on advice from RCUK and that this advice caused the missed deadline, but found RCUK were skilled advisers and their error was attributed to the claimant under the Dedman principle. It was therefore reasonably practicable to present those claims in time, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
For the statutory redundancy payment claim, the Tribunal assumed, for limitation purposes only, the claimant's case on employment status, termination date, continuity and redundancy. It found he had not made a written claim to Rapax Ltd or taken any other section 164(1) step within six months. Although he referred the issue to the Tribunal within the next six-month period, the Tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable that he should receive a statutory redundancy payment, having regard to the claimant's awareness of some time limit, the steps he did not take to check it, the length of the delay, and the circumstances in which he delayed insolvency proceedings to accrue two years' service.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay under section 182 ERA dismissed because it was presented outside the section 188 time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay under section 182 ERA dismissed because it was presented outside the section 188 time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay under section 182 ERA dismissed because it was presented outside the section 188 time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. Classified as wrongful_dismissal because the locked taxonomy has no specific notice pay category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for a statutory redundancy payment dismissed. The Tribunal found the claimant had not taken any section 164(1) step within six months and, although he referred the question to the Tribunal within the following six months, it did not appear just and equitable that he should receive a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 188 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Ltd v Khan
- section 164 ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- just and equitable
- Mairs (Inspector of Taxes) v Haughey
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.