Case 2600020/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A. Mead v Powell & Barns Group Limited Heard: Cloud Video Platform Regi — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600020/2022
- Decision date
- 23 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Broughton Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A. Mead
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A. Mead brought a claim of unlawful deduction of wages against Powell & Barns Group Limited. The tribunal heard the case on 7 July 2022 before Employment Judge R Broughton at the Midlands East Employment Tribunal by Cloud Video Platform, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms Powell, a director.
The tribunal held that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was presented outside the applicable time limit under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time within the meaning of section 23(4) of the same Act.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time under section 23(4), so the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.