Case 3201059/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Shah v Promise Care Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201059/2023
- Decision date
- 4 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr H Shah brought complaints against Promise Care Services Limited for failure to pay holiday pay and for unlawful deductions from wages in respect of bank holiday wages. The case was heard by Employment Judge Emery at East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 4 October 2023.
The tribunal dismissed both complaints. It found that the claims were not well-founded and that they had been brought out of time. The tribunal also recorded that it was not reasonably practicable for the claims to have been brought in time.
No monetary award was made. The judgment does not record any other substantive findings or apportion any remedy between the complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Complaint of a failure to pay holiday pay; tribunal found it was not well-founded and also brought out of time, in circumstances where it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deductions from wages in respect of bank holiday wages; tribunal found it was not well-founded and also brought out of time, in circumstances where it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.