Case 3201873/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Tang v Intertek Testing Management Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201873/2019
- Decision date
- 6 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Tang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Tang brought claims arising from the timing of a bonus payment and his final salary, pleading breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. The Respondent relied on the contractual bonus clause, which said the annual bonus was discretionary and payable on or before 30 April of the following year, and said the bonus of £12,376.53 was paid into the Claimant's account on 26 April 2019.
The tribunal held that both claims were out of time. The Claimant's employment ended on 31 March 2019, he commenced early conciliation on 13 May 2019 and the certificate was issued on 28 May 2019, but the claim was not presented until 12 August 2019. Applying the 'reasonably practicable' test and the early conciliation provisions in s.207B ERA 1996, the tribunal calculated that the unlawful deduction time limit expired on 8 July 2019 and the breach of contract time limit expired on 14 July 2019. It rejected the explanation that travelling, internet access, job searching, and a mistaken assumption about early conciliation made it not reasonably practicable to issue the claim in time.
On the merits, the tribunal found there was no breach of contract because the express term permitted payment on or before 30 April and the bonus was in fact paid on 26 April 2019. It held that the Claimant's expectation that the bonus would usually be paid in March, and the announcement that March payment was expected, did not vary the contractual term. For the same reason, the tribunal found there was no unlawful deduction from wages.
The judgment therefore dismissed both claims for lack of jurisdiction, and stated that they would in any event have failed on their merits if they had been in time. The tribunal then dealt with a costs application and ordered the Claimant to pay £4,525 plus VAT towards the Respondent's costs under rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, finding that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing and pursuing it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal also held that there was no breach on the merits because the bonus clause allowed payment on or before 30 April 2019 and the Claimant was paid on 26 April 2019; the asserted March payment practice did not vary the express term. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time after applying the early conciliation extension and, in any event, held there was no unlawful deduction because the bonus was contractually payable on or before 30 April 2019 and was paid on 26 April 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- reasonably practicable
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
- Rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- AQ Ltd v Holden
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.