Case 2603231/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Djellab v Royal Mencap Society — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603231/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Djellab
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by CVP at Leicester on 4 June 2021, Employment Judge Ahmed sat alone. Miss H Djellab appeared in person and Royal Mencap Society was represented by Ms Moira Kinnear, solicitor.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages had been presented out of time. It also found that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to bring the complaint in time, and that she brought it within a further period that was reasonable. The Tribunal therefore extended time so that the claim could proceed.
The judgment did not decide the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages complaint and recorded no monetary remedy. The case was to be listed for a further preliminary hearing by CVP, with a two-hour time estimate, to identify the issues, give case management directions and list the case for a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At the preliminary hearing the Tribunal decided only the time-limit issue: the complaint was out of time, but time was extended so the claim could proceed. The substantive unlawful deduction from wages complaint was not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- further period that was reasonable
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.