Case 3303406/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303406/2019
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing in Reading on 2 January 2020, Employment Judge Vowles sat alone and heard evidence on oath, read the parties' documents, and amended the respondent's name to BFS Group Limited t/a Best Food Limited. The judgment records that the proceedings were therefore to continue against the amended respondent name.
The claimant's unpaid wages claim, brought under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996, was presented after the expiry of the three-month time limit. The tribunal found there were no grounds to extend that time limit, held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim, and dismissed it. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided on a written request within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim presented after the expiry of the three-month time limit under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found there were no grounds to extend time and said it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- three month time limit
- rule 62 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.