Case 6002390/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Divya Kavadiya v Byosen Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002390/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Duff REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Divya Kavadiya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Divya Kavadiya brought a claim against Byosen Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages arising from his time as an intern, with the ET1 referring to internship dates of 20/06/23 to 06/08/23 and a wage payment date of 31 August 2023. The Tribunal held that the claim was brought outside the time limit for an unlawful deduction from wages claim. Early conciliation had been started on 04/03/24, the certificate was dated 15/04/24, and the ET1 was received on 14/05/24, so the claim was significantly out of time.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant had not applied for an extension of time and had provided no reasons or evidence to explain why one should be granted. It therefore dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim as out of time.
Byosen Limited also applied for costs under Rule 76(1)(a) and (b). The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had behaved unreasonably in continuing with an out-of-time claim despite being on notice for a lengthy period that limitation was in issue, and that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. It also found the claimant acted unreasonably by failing to attend the fourth listed final hearing without explanation, despite attempts by the Tribunal office to contact him.
The Tribunal awarded the respondent costs of £361, calculated as 19 hours at £19 per hour. This comprised 16 hours of preparation and 3 hours for attendance at the hearing. No other monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time. The Tribunal found no application for an extension of time and no evidence or explanation to justify one. Costs were awarded to the respondent separately under Rule 76. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £361
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76(1)(a) and (b)
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.