Case 4104592/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mrs N Brown T/a Zeste Beauty: S/4104592/2017 — 2017
- Case reference
- 4104592/2017
- Decision date
- 8 December 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Claire McManus
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Rebecca Williams, was employed by the respondent, Mrs Nicola Brown t/a Zeste Beauty. Her employment ended on 26 April 2017, and the wage payment due on 25 May 2017 included basic pay, holiday and commission. No payment was made on that date. A wage slip later issued on 16 June 2017 recorded a gross amount of £386.30, with deductions of £2.40 for PAYE tax and £440.00 for training costs. The tribunal found that the wage slip accurately set out the gross amount due and the stated deductions.
The issue before this hearing was limitation, not the substantive lawfulness of the deductions. The tribunal identified the relevant statutory time limit under section 23(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and held that, absent any extension, the claim would have been out of time because it was not lodged within three months of 25 May 2017.
The tribunal accepted, however, that ACAS conciliation altered the position. The claimant contacted ACAS on 8 August 2017, an ACAS conciliation certificate was issued on 8 September 2017, and the tribunal held that the conciliation period extended the time limit by one month from the date of the certificate. On that basis, the extended deadline expired on 8 October 2017.
The claim was lodged on 17 September 2017, so the tribunal held that it was not time-barred and had jurisdiction to hear it. The sole issue left for the substantive hearing was whether the deductions shown on the 25 May 2017 wage slip were lawful.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary limitation decision only. The tribunal held the claim was not time-barred and could proceed to a substantive hearing on the merits; it did not decide whether the deductions were lawful. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 23(2)(a) of the 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.