Case 6016020/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Khan v Jewel Home Support Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016020/2025
- Decision date
- 1 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Khan was dismissed on 1 June 2024. He brought complaints of automatic unfair dismissal, failure to pay a redundancy payment, and unauthorised deduction of wages. The tribunal recorded the ACAS Early Conciliation dates as 9 April 2025 and 14 April 2025, and the ET1 presentation date as 2 May 2025.
The tribunal held that the statutory time limit for the automatic unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction of wages complaints expired on 31 August 2024, and the time limit for the redundancy pay complaint expired on 30 November 2024. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit all complaints within those time limits. As a result, all complaints were dismissed.
The respondent's application for costs was refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint dismissed because it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Failure to pay redundancy payment complaint dismissed because it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction of wages complaint dismissed because it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.