Case 6018496/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Maughan Respondent 1 Respondent 2 Kelburn Recruitment Ltd (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) The Secretary of State for Business & Trade v Ms J Whalley, lay representative — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018496/2024
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Maughan Respondent 1 Respondent 2 Kelburn Recruitment Ltd (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) The Secretary of State for Business & Trade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by CVP in Newcastle on 8 April 2025 and gave judgment on 14 May 2025. Employment Judge Jeram found that the claimant's claims for arrears of wages and breach of contract were not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, and both claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent at the relevant time. On that basis, the claim for redundancy pay was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim for arrears of wages and says it was not presented within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says this claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent at the relevant time, so it lacked jurisdiction to determine the redundancy pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.