Case 2501089/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Newton v The Original Cottage Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501089/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Newton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Newton brought claims against The Original Cottage Company Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages and for a redundancy payment. The hearing took place at Newcastle CFCTC by CVP before Employment Judge Newburn on 27 January 2022, and written reasons were not provided because the decision was given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim. It held that the claim had not been presented within the time limit in section 23(2) ERA 1996 and was out of time. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within that time limit, so it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The redundancy payment claim succeeded. The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay Mr Newton £631.13. The figure was stated to be £1,459.85 less £828.72 already paid to the claimant in respect of his redundancy payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim was presented out of time under section 23(2) ERA 1996; the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim well founded and ordered payment of £631.13, calculated as £1,459.85 less £828.72 already paid. | Upheld | — | £631 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £631
- across all upheld claims
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.