Case 6005367/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Toward v Eco HVAC — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005367/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Toward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint for unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 ERA, claiming approximately £4,500 in unpaid wages from his former employer. The preliminary hearing considered whether the complaint was outside the statutory three month time limit and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.
The Tribunal found that the claim had been presented approximately six months outside the primary time limit. Although the claimant gave evidence that he delayed because he wanted to give his former employer the chance to pay what had been promised, the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had the necessary information to bring the claim, could have sought advice from his union, online sources, or a CAB, and was not incapacitated from presenting the claim. It therefore found the complaint out of time, held that it lacked jurisdiction, and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. The pleaded unpaid wages figure was approximately £4,500, but no award was made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 ERA
- Section 23(2) of the 1996 Act
- Rule 37(1)(a)
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bainbridge
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum
- Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks
- Walls Meat
- Riley v Tescos Stores
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.