Case 3202534/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bhuiyan v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202534/2018
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodrich Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bhuiyan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints relating to redundancy pay, pay in lieu of notice, arrears or other payments, and Saturday and Sunday premium payments. At the preliminary hearing he clarified that he was not pursuing unlawful discrimination, that the Respondent had paid the redundancy payment owed, and that the remaining disputed sums were pay in lieu of notice and premium payments.
The Tribunal found that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint about premium payments was years out of time, and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have brought that complaint in time. Treating the premium issue also as a possible breach of contract claim did not assist the Claimant because he had not been trying to resolve that matter internally during the relevant period.
For the pay in lieu of notice breach of contract complaint, the Tribunal accepted, applying a liberal interpretation in favour of the employee, that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the primary time limit because the Claimant had made considerable efforts to resolve that matter internally. However, after early conciliation ended, the Tribunal found that the Claimant delayed too long before presenting the claim and had not acted with a reasonable degree of urgency. The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented in time despite it being reasonably practicable to do so. The premium payment issue was also considered as capable of being a breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim covered the alleged pay in lieu of notice and Saturday/Sunday premium payments. The Tribunal found the premium payment complaint could reasonably practicably have been presented in time, and the pay in lieu of notice complaint, although not reasonably practicable to present in time, was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Respondent had paid the redundancy payment to which the Claimant was entitled. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer v Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan
- reasonably practicable
- further reasonable period
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.