Case 3301239/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. S. Embury v Prestwood Motors Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301239/2022
- Decision date
- 26 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. S. Embury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S. Embury’s claims were heard by video at Watford on 2 November 2022 before Employment Judge Callan. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim because it had been presented outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It reached the same conclusion in relation to the claimant’s unlawful deduction claims.
Those unlawful deduction claims were described as claims for notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The tribunal held that they were presented outside the time limit prescribed by section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment therefore dismissed the claim in its entirety. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit prescribed by s111 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included unlawful deduction claims for notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit prescribed by s23 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 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.