Case 3327796/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr McArdle (legal executive) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3327796/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Cambridge on 25 September 2020, Employment Judge King considered Mr Brahimi's unlawful deduction from wages complaint against Royal Mail Group Ltd. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr McArdle, legal executive.
The tribunal found that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint was presented outside the primary limitation period. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and dismissed it. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not 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 | The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the primary limitation period and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.