Case 2501842/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Carr and others v Entserve UK Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501842/2021
- Decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Carr and others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Carr and the other listed claimants brought claims against Entserve UK Ltd for unauthorised deduction from wages. The hearing took place at Newcastle Employment Tribunal via CVP on 25 April 2022 before Employment Judge Jeram, with the claimants appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The Tribunal struck out the claims. It held that it had no jurisdiction because the complaints were presented outside the time limit imposed by s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also records the Tribunal's finding that it was reasonably practicable to present the complaints within the relevant period.
No monetary award was made. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims brought by Mr D Carr and the other listed claimants were struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints. The Tribunal found that the complaints were presented outside the time limit in s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable to present them within the relevant period. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 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.