Case 6007387/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hafiz Haris Saleem v Nationwide Enforcement Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007387/2025
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rao REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hafiz Haris Saleem
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 18 August 2025 before Employment Judge Rao at London East Hearing Centre by CVP. The claimant, Mr Hafiz Haris Saleem, appeared in person and the respondent, Nationwide Enforcement Services Ltd, was represented by its director, Mr Qasim Aslam.
The only issue recorded in the judgment was a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal identified section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the relevant time-limit provision and found that the applicable deadline had expired on 15 March 2024.
The claim was filed on 4 March 2025. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim by 15 March 2024 and, in any event, that the claim had not been presented within a reasonable period thereafter. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the complaint as a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the applicable time limit expired on 15 March 2024, the claim was filed on 4 March 2025, and it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable time limit
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.