Case 3335472/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs R Gray, Director — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335472/2018
- Decision date
- 23 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs T Karolyi worked as a care worker for Helping Hands Ltd from 3 August 2016 to 7 December 2016 and presented her tribunal claim on 18 December 2018 after ACAS early conciliation. The preliminary hearing was concerned only with time limits. The tribunal accepted that she had limited English and proceeded without an interpreter after checking that she could understand the questions. It also found that she had sought advice from CAB and later from a solicitor, but chose not to litigate because of solicitor's fees, and it found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in presenting the claim.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant did not have one complete year of service and therefore could not be entitled to a redundancy payment in any event. It also found no suggestion that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy, or that there was any basis for extending the six-month period referred to in the judgment. The judge said the claim was so evidently hopeless that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that even if it had been presented in time it would have been struck out as having no prospect of success.
The unpaid holiday pay claim was treated as a claim under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that the last possible date for payment was 7 December 2016 and that no claim was brought within the three-month primary limitation period. Applying the secondary limitation test, the judge held that it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and that, even if it had not been, only a short further period could be justified; by the time the claim was issued in December 2018, that period had long expired. The unpaid wages claim, treated as a deduction from wages claim under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, failed for the same limitation reasons, and all three claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/time. The tribunal found the claimant had less than one complete year of service, so she could not in any event be entitled to a redundancy payment, and there was no basis to extend the six-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim pleaded as unpaid holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal held it was out of time under the primary limitation period and that the secondary time-limit test was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of wages treated as a Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 deduction-from-wages claim. Dismissed on the same limitation analysis as the holiday pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable extension
- Paul v C & J Stone Limited (EAT 209 80)
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 30(2)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- reasonably practicable test
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.