Case 6004821/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Davies v Premier Modular Limited Heard: by CVP on 31 January 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004821/2024
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr H Davies brought a claim of unauthorised deduction from wages against Premier Modular Limited. He said he had been employed as an apprentice joiner from 31 May 2023 to 26 February 2024 and that, between 31 May 2023 and 22 October 2023, he had been paid at an apprentice rate of £7 an hour, later £7.35, when he should have been paid the National Minimum Wage applicable to his age. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was born on 12 January 1996, was 27 when he started work, and that the relevant National Minimum Wage figures were £5.28 for apprentices and £10.42 for a 27-year-old during the period in question.
The tribunal did not reach the merits because it found the claim was out of time. The claimant said he first saw the apprenticeship agreement on 23 October 2023 and then asked HR to pay him the higher rate for the earlier period; he was told the respondent would not make back pay but would start paying the higher rate from May 2024. The tribunal found that the last relevant pay date for the period claimed was 27 October 2023, so the ACAS early conciliation time limit expired on 26 January 2024. The claimant did not contact ACAS until 17 April 2024 and did not issue the claim until after early conciliation ended on 29 May 2024.
Applying the statutory time-limit provisions and the test of whether it was "reasonably practicable" to present the claim in time, the tribunal found that the claimant knew of the alleged underpayment from 23 October 2023, had the facts needed to start proceedings, and was able to take steps to enforce his rights by speaking to HR and taking some advice. The tribunal held that ignorance of time limits did not make it not reasonably practicable to bring the claim earlier. It therefore concluded that the claim was almost three months out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and it lacked jurisdiction to hear it; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd
- Radakovits v Abbey National plc
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevalyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
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.