Case 4100585/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Beata Baran v Accommodation Angels Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100585/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Beata Baran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Beata Baran brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay. The hearing on 23 April 2021 was conducted by CVP, the respondent did not attend or take part, and the only issue listed for decision was whether the claim, presented on 9 February 2021, was in time or whether time should be extended under s23(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the claimant started work for Accommodation Angels Ltd as a cleaner on 30 July 2018 and that her employment ended on 30 October 2020. Her final salary did not include holiday pay. The Tribunal accepted that she did not know she was entitled to holiday pay when her employment ended, that she later learned from Jobcentre/Universal Credit enquiries around 26 November 2020 that she might be entitled to it, and that she needed assistance because she did not speak English to a sufficient standard. She relied on a Polish-speaking non-lawyer for informal help, wrote to the respondent on 24 January 2021, and then began early conciliation on or around 7 February 2021 before presenting the claim on 9 February 2021.
The Tribunal held that the primary three-month time limit expired on 29 January 2021 and that the claim was therefore 11 days late. Applying the 'not reasonably practicable' test under s23(4), and referring to Porter v Bandridge Ltd and Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances, the Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. It relied on the fact that she was able, with assistance, to contact the respondent and ACAS, that she knew by 24 January 2021 that there was a short tribunal time limit, and that there were unexplained gaps in the chronology, including between late November 2020 and 24 January 2021 and between 31 January 2021 and 6 February 2021.
The Tribunal therefore refused to extend time under s23(4) and held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay element of an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The Tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have lodged it within the primary time limit, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances [1973] IRLR 379
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.