Case 4100134/2023 · Employment Tribunal
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4100134/2023, Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th March 2023, at am Employment Judge J G d’lnverno Miss B Makan v BXL Limited trading as Brass Monkey Grange — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100134/2023
- Decision date
- 5 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4100134/2023, Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th March 2023, at am Employment Judge J G d’lnverno Miss B Makan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked from around 21 March 2021 for the business trading as Number 1 The Grange. That business ceased trading at the end of May 2022, and she said she was owed wages for the week ending 30 May 2022 and holiday pay accrued before closure. She sought to pursue those sums against BXL Limited trading as Brass Monkey Grange on the basis that a TUPE transfer had occurred. The respondent said the previous company was unconnected, had gone into liquidation on 6 June 2022, and that it entered a new lease on 29 July 2022 for a different public house business.
The tribunal applied the statutory time-limit provisions in section 23(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 30(2)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, with reference to Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council. It found that the claimant knew by 4 August 2022 at the latest that a three-month time limit applied, and by 17 August 2022 at the latest that she intended to pursue the respondent, who was denying liability. She did not make formal contact with ACAS for early conciliation until 8 November 2022, after the initial time limit had expired at the end of August 2022, and she did not present her ET1 until 10 January 2023.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she was busy with examinations and work, but it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It also was not satisfied that the January 2023 presentation was within a further reasonable period. The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages and the holiday pay claim linked to the period at Number 1 The Grange were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The judge observed that, if the previous employer had been placed in liquidation as asserted, the claimant would likely need to pursue the liquidator in relation to those sums.
Separately, the respondent conceded that £91.88 was due to the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay arising from her employment with Brass Monkey Grange, and undertook to pay that amount by bank transfer on 24 March 2023. The claimant accepted that undertaking, so that issue fell away and no further determination was required on it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for wages said to be due for the week ending 30 May 2022 from the previous business, Number 1 The Grange. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the ET1 was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay said to arise from employment with the previous business, Number 1 The Grange. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the same time-bar basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay accrued during the claimant's employment with Brass Monkey Grange. The respondent conceded that £91.88 was due and undertook to pay it by bank transfer on 24 March 2023; the claimant accepted that undertaking and the issue fell away. | Settled | — | £92 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £92
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- reg. 30(2)(b) WTR 1998
- section 207B ERA 1996
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119 CA
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.