Case 3301555/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A. Cebulla v BaxterStorey Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301555/2023
- Decision date
- 24 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A. Cebulla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A. Cebulla brought claims against BaxterStorey Limited for unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages. The Tribunal recorded that both claims had been issued out of time.
Employment Judge S. Matthews found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to issue the claims in time. On that basis the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages claims, and both claims were struck out.
The judgment records no monetary award and no remedy. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was issued out of time. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to issue it in time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Described in the judgment as unauthorised deductions from wages. The claim was issued out of time; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to issue it in time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.