Case 3312367/2023 · Employment Tribunal
AB v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312367/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taft REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
AB
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages, concerning a series of deductions ending in July 2022, had been brought within the statutory time limit. The claimant accepted that the claim brought in October 2023 was approximately 12 months out of time, and relied on ill health and pursuit of internal processes as reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim earlier.
The tribunal found that, during the relevant period, the claimant was unwell but was able to work with adjustments, correspond with the respondent on several matters, and engage with existing tribunal proceedings. It found that the deterioration in his mental health occurred later and that there was insufficient evidence that ill health prevented him from starting ACAS Early Conciliation and submitting an ET1 within the relevant period.
The tribunal concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim in time. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint, and dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490
- Chouafi v London United Busways Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 689
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- London Underground Ltd v Noel [2000] ICR 109
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.