Case 3305933/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Harry Piper v The Recruitment Crowd Group — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305933/2021
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoyle
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Harry Piper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Piper claimed arrears of pay for one unpaid shift at £9.77 per hour. The respondent investigated an initial complaint framed around 4 or 5 December 2020, found no work had been done on those dates, and did not pay wages on that basis. After receiving the ET1, the respondent re-checked CCTV for the dates the claimant had identified in the claim form, concluded he had worked on either 27 or 28 November 2020, and then paid £80.80 net on 4 June 2021, comprising basic pay and holiday pay.
The tribunal first dealt with the claimant’s non-attendance and proceeded in his absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that ACAS had received notification of the claim on 28 February 2021, which was one day outside the relevant time limit because the last day of work was 29 November 2020 and the claim should have been presented by 27 February 2021.
On that jurisdictional issue, Employment Judge Hoyle found there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint and dismissed the claim. It noted that, had jurisdiction been established, it would have made a declaration that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of wages that was later repaid.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit in section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction; the tribunal also found no basis to extend time under section 23(4). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- not reasonably practicable
- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.