Case 3201911/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rita Rajani Zaveri v London Borough of Redbridge — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201911/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rita Rajani Zaveri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant's complaints had been presented within the applicable statutory time limits. The claims before the tribunal were unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay and travel time, protected disclosure detriment complaints, failure to provide written terms and conditions, and failure to provide compliant itemised pay statements.
The tribunal found that the respondent made a single decision not to use the claimant for further work from 13 July 2018, and that this ended the contract on that date. It rejected the proposition that the later absence of work was a continuing failure. The tribunal also found that a claimed payment for a senior staff meeting on 15 September 2018 would have crystallised by mid-October 2018. On that basis, the latest date by which ACAS should have been contacted was 20 January 2019 for the payment-related claims, and 12 October 2018 for the protected disclosure, written particulars and payslip claims.
The claimant contacted ACAS on 12 June 2019 and presented the tribunal claim on 9 August 2019, so the tribunal found all claims were well outside the three-month limits. Applying the test of reasonable practicability, the tribunal held that the claimant's attempts to resolve matters internally, and her failure to make proper enquiries about bringing tribunal proceedings, did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for shortfalls in pay, including cancelled lessons/meetings and pay-related sums, was dismissed because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint was treated as out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to travel time and some payment claims also being put as breach of contract claims; these were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaints relating to cancelled invigilation shifts and withholding work from July 2018 onwards were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 1 ERA written particulars claim was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 8 ERA itemised pay statement claim was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonable practicability
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
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.