Case 6002583/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ramy Elhaw v The Dental Imaging Company — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002583/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ramy Elhaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of an unlawful deduction of wages arising from a period when his salary was reduced after he was unable to drive. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's ordinary limitation period expired on 27 May 2022, but he did not contact ACAS in relation to this respondent until April 2024 and the claim was not accepted until later in 2024.
The tribunal considered whether it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time. It found that, although the claimant had been ignorant of his ability to bring the claim within the relevant time limit, that ignorance was not reasonable in all the circumstances because he had opportunities to investigate his rights earlier and had not taken them.
The tribunal also found that, even if the claimant had satisfied the first stage of the time-limit test, he had not shown that the further delay after learning of his rights was reasonable. The claim was therefore struck out as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out as out of time. The PDF text supplied in the prompt is truncated, but the outcome and claim type are stated in the visible text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s23(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan 1979 ICR 52
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd 1978 ICR 943
- Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks 1978 ICR 646
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.