Mr S S Digpal v Bidvest Noonon (UK) Limited — 2024

The respondent did not present an ET3 and sought an extension of time, but the tribunal refused that request after applying the guidance in Grant v Asda and balancing the prejudice to both parties. The judge noted that the respondent had already accepted the £580.80 wages sum, had had sufficient opportunity to file a response, and that the matter could fairly proceed with questions to clarify the position.

The claimant’s complaint for unlawful deduction of wages in April 2024 succeeded. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s breakdown of three weeks’ pay at 16 hours per week and £12.10 per hour, producing a gross sum of £580.80, and recorded that the respondent accepted that amount was due.

The claimant’s request for statutory interest failed because the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to award it. The separate breach of contract claim for £500 also failed: the judge held that it would duplicate the April 2024 wages claim and that the claimant had not shown evidence of any additional loss arising from the late payment.

The claimant’s claim described as administrative fees was treated as a request for a preparation time order under rule 76 of the 2013 ET Rules. The tribunal found that the respondent had been unreasonable in not conceding liability earlier, considered that the case should not have reached final hearing, and awarded preparation time for 13 hours at the maximum rate of £33 per hour, producing an award of £429. The total ordered to be paid was £1,009.80.