Case 8000722/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Jasken v Countrywide Estate Agents Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000722/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Jasken
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Jasken was employed by Countrywide Estate Agents Ltd from 7 November 2022 until her resignation on 21 November 2023. She received a payslip around 31 October 2023 and raised a grievance on 6 November 2023 about pay, including the respondent's treatment of commission when paying the statutory minimum hourly rate and later deductions from her final pay. The claim was lodged on 27 May 2024, after ACAS early conciliation had started on 28 April 2024 and a certificate had issued on 2 May 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew about the three-month time limit and that she did not need to instruct a lawyer in order to bring a tribunal claim. It accepted that she had contacted ACAS in November and again in March 2024, but held that her belief that legal representation would be helpful did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The tribunal noted that many claimants appear without legal representation and found that she was capable of presenting her case herself.
The tribunal also held that, even after she understood in late March 2024 that she did not need a lawyer and that a tribunal could sometimes allow an out-of-time claim, waiting until the end of May 2024 was not a reasonable period. It said someone acting with reasonable diligence would have taken urgent action once aware that the claim was already out of time. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unlawful deduction from wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary decision on time limit only. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the complaint was lodged out of time and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within the statutory period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period thereafter
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.