Case 3300231/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Holman & others (see schedule attached) v Newrest Inflight UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300231/2021
- Decision date
- 3 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Holman & others (see schedule attached)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims brought by Mr T Holman and others against Newrest Inflight UK Limited. In a letter dated 9 November 2022, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out.
The tribunal found the claims appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success because they had been presented more than three months after the alleged unauthorised deduction from wages. It recorded that this was outside the time limit in s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore ordered that the claims be struck out. The judgment lists the individual case numbers for the claimant group, including Mr T Holman, Mr H Chahal, Mr M Elliott, Mr S Menezes, Mr A Larking, Mr D Simmons and Mr R Elliott.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the claims after finding they appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success because they were presented more than three months after the alleged unauthorised deduction from wages, outside the time limit in s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.