Case 6021536/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Emmanuel v Doron and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 6021536/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms S Emmanuel
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Emmanuel presented a claim for unpaid salary. The Tribunal noted that she said her employment ended on 28 February 2024 and that Early Conciliation began on 6 November 2024, with the certificate issued on 11 November 2024.
On 2 September 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant saying the claim appeared to have been presented outside the three-month time limit in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as extended by the Early Conciliation period. She was asked to explain whether she said it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and to set out what she was claiming and how she had calculated the figure.
The claimant did not respond. The Tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time and that there was no evidence on which time could be extended. It therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for unpaid salary. The Tribunal held it was presented out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that there was no basis to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- three-month time limit
- not 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.