Case 3323849/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr Millward, Bridge Solicitors — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323849/2021
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Macleod's claim against Mach Recruitment Ltd was heard by Employment Judge G D Davison at Watford on 16 January 2023 by CVP. The Tribunal held that the claim had been presented out of time and struck it out because it had no jurisdiction to hear it where it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been made in time.
The judgment records, in the alternative, that if the timeliness point had been decided the other way, the Tribunal would have dismissed the claim for unpaid wages. The Claimant said he had not been paid for the week commencing 31 May 2021 before his employment was terminated on 7 June 2021.
Documents produced to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing showed that payment for that period had in fact been made in full and that no monies were outstanding. No remedy was awarded. The written record also notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim struck out because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it where it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been made in time. In the alternative, the Tribunal said it would have dismissed the claim for unpaid wages because the documents produced on the day showed payment had been made in full for the week commencing 31 May 2021 and no monies were outstanding. | 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.
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.