Case 4101066/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101066/2022 (V)5 Held on April 2022 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr B Nlemchi v Protect Security Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101066/2022
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101066/2022 (V)5 Held on April 2022 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr B Nlemchi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a claim under s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unlawful deductions from wages. The claimant, Mr B Nlemchi, was heard in person; the respondent did not appear and the claim was not defended. Although the claim form was presented out of time, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that he had no experience of employment tribunal procedure, had sought advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau and ACAS, and had genuinely misunderstood the time limit. On that basis, the tribunal found it had not been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time and extended the time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was presented outwith the three-month time limit, but the tribunal extended time because the claimant had genuinely misunderstood the deadline and presented the claim as soon as possible after the limit. | Upheld | — | £988 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £988
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.