Case 3306065/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Eighteen v Brake Bros Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306065/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Eighteen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claim was presented outside the three month time limit, adjusted to take account of Acas early conciliation.
The tribunal also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been started within that adjusted time limit. On that basis, the time period could not be extended and the claim could not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not expressly identify the substantive claim type; the gov.uk listing categories indicate unfair dismissal. The judgment records that the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that the claim cannot proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not expressly identify the substantive claim type; the gov.uk listing categories indicate unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment records that the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that the claim cannot proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- three month time limit adjusted to take account of Acas early conciliation
- 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.
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.