Case 6027540/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cliff Mighton v St Mungo Community Housing Association — 2025
- Case reference
- 6027540/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rao REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cliff Mighton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rao heard this matter at the London East Hearing Centre by CVP on 12 December 2025. The claimant Mr Cliff Mighton appeared in person; the respondent (St Mungo Community Housing Association) was represented by Ms G Nicholls of counsel, instructed by Ashfords LLP. The 1-hour final hearing was converted to a preliminary hearing in public to address time limit and strike-out issues.
The claim concerned a single deduction of £268.57 from the claimant's payslip dated 30 November 2014; the claimant filed the claim on 24 July 2025 and contended for an aggregated sum of £34,108.39 on the basis of repeated monthly deductions. Applying section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Palmer / Lowri Beck line of authority, the Judge found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the claim within the time limit of 1 March 2015 and that he had not done so within a reasonable period thereafter; accordingly the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the complaint was dismissed. The Judge also found there had been no series of deductions and that section 23(4A) ERA would in any event preclude consideration of deductions made before the two-year backstop.
In the alternative, the Judge held that the deduction represented an excepted statutory deduction for strike action under section 14(5) ERA 1996, following Sunderland Polytechnic v Evans [1993] IRLR 196, with no reasonable prospect of success, and so the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction: time limit expired 1 March 2015 and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. In the alternative, struck out under r.38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success because the deduction (£268.57) represented strike action pay under s.14(5) ERA 1996. PDF text truncated from 16,799 to 15,000 chars. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.14(5) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52, CA
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943, CA
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372, CA
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490, CA
- Churchill v A Yeates and Sons Ltd [1983] ICR 380, EAT
- Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson [1988] ICR 558, CA
- Marley (UK) Ltd v Anderson [1996] ICR 728, CA
- Parkin v Leeds City Council UKEAT/0178/19/RN
- Sunderland Polytechnic v Evans [1993] IRLR 196
- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.