Case 2601878/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person v K N Care Ltd T/a Caremark — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601878/2022
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 29 December 2021 until 9 April 2022, although she first carried out work on 14 January 2022. She brought complaints for holiday pay, other payments including two days' induction pay, and failure to provide a pay slip for the final payment. The respondent did not file a response and did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal found that the primary time limit for the pay slip complaint expired on 8 July 2022, three months after termination. The last payment was made on 3 May 2022, so the primary time limit for the unlawful deductions and holiday pay complaints expired on 2 August 2022. Early conciliation did not begin until 10 August 2022, and all claims were therefore presented out of time.
The Tribunal considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claims in time. It found that the claimant had contacted ACAS in July 2022, had been told about the right to bring a Tribunal claim and the three-month time limit, and had not shown that timely presentation was not reasonably practicable. The Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about pay for two days' induction was presented out of time; the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was presented out of time; the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint that the respondent failed to provide an itemised pay slip was presented out of time; the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd 1973 325 NIRC
- Bewick v SGA Forecourts Ltd ET Case No.2501693/2014
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- 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.