Case 3205977/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ralfa v Mr A Aarons — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205977/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ralfa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only claim dealt with in the judgment was a claim of unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Povey found that the claim had not been presented within three months of the relevant wage payments. The tribunal also found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that the claim was not presented within such further period as it considered reasonable. As a result, and by reason of section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that it could not consider the claim. It recorded that the claim therefore had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the three-month period beginning with the date of payment of the wages from which the deductions were made. It found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, alternatively, that it was not presented within any further reasonable period. On that basis, the claim could not be considered under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was struck out for no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.