Case 6016107/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Williams v In Depth Services (Cleaning) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016107/2025
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public, the tribunal considered the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages. The claimant was not in attendance, and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The tribunal found that both complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time. It also found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented him from bringing the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so. The claim was dismissed in full.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and the claimant had less than two years' service for the purposes of section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to the complaint as unauthorised deduction from wages and states it was not presented within the applicable time limit when it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.