Case 6014802/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A S Jakir v Serenity Intergrated Care Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014802/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M A S Jakir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 10 March 2025 at East London Tribunal Hearing Centre, heard remotely by video, Employment Judge S Shore heard the claimant, Mr M A S Jakir, in person. There was no appearance for either respondent. The tribunal dismissed the claims against the second respondent, Pardon Tafadzra Muguwe, because claims of this kind can only be brought against an employer and the second respondent was not the claimant's employer.
The claimant's claim against Serenity Intergrated Care Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 23(3) when it was reasonably practicable for him to have done so. The separate claim for failure to pay holiday pay accrued but not taken was dismissed for the same reason. The claimant's application to add a breach of contract claim under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994 was refused, and the tribunal stated that if it had been allowed it would also have been dismissed as out of time.
Because all claims were dismissed, the tribunal did not need to consider remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as not presented within the time limit in section 23(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have done so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed as not presented within the time limit in section 23(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have done so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.