Case 3206092/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Pryma v Transparent Trading Limited trading as “The Ship Pub” (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206092/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Pryma
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Pryma, brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against Transparent Trading Limited trading as The Ship Pub. The respondent was in voluntary liquidation and did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant worked as a chef from 27 July 2021 until 4 May 2022, which it treated as the effective date of termination.
The Tribunal found that the normal three-month time limit for an unauthorised deductions claim expired on 3 August 2022. The claimant did not contact ACAS for early conciliation until 14 November 2022, so he did not benefit from any extension to the limitation period. He received his early conciliation certificate on 14 December 2022 and presented his claim on 24 December 2022.
On the reason for delay, the claimant said he had hoped the respondent would pay him. The Tribunal held that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It therefore concluded that the claim was presented out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it, so the claim for unpaid wages was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- 3-month time limit for unauthorised deductions from wages
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable extra time after the normal time limit
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.