Cases3200280/2024

Claimant v Government Legal Department

10 June 2024Before Employment Judge Isabel ManleyEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

The claim was presented out of time (3 days late). The claimant knew from August 2023 that the respondent's position was that she was not entitled to the interim payment as she would not be employed on 1 January 2024. She saw her payslip on 2 November 2023 confirming non-payment. The tribunal found the claimant, an experienced solicitor with 15 years post-qualification experience, had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month time limit. The strict time limitation rules applied and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Breach of Contractstruck out

The breach of contract claim (alternatively pleaded to the unlawful deduction claim regarding the same interim payment) was also presented out of time and subject to the same reasonably practicable test. For the same reasons as the wages claim, the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to present in time. The tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Facts

The claimant, a solicitor with 15 years' experience working at Grade 6/7 for the Government Legal Department, left employment on 3 October 2023 to join another government department. She claimed entitlement to an interim payment under the respondent's pay modernization programme (PARM) which was paid in October 2023. The respondent's position from August 2023 was that she was ineligible as she would not be employed on 1 January 2024, the key eligibility date. Her October 2023 payslip dated 31 October did not include the payment. She queried this and received definitive responses on 6 November 2023 and 25 January 2024 confirming she was not entitled. She contacted ACAS on 1 February 2024 and presented her claim on 2 February 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found the claim was presented 3 days out of time. The claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month time limit, given she was an experienced lawyer who knew for many months that the respondent's position was that she was not entitled to the payment, saw her payslip on 2 November 2023 confirming non-payment, and received detailed confirmation on 25 January 2024. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and it was dismissed.

Practical note

Even a small delay of 3 days beyond the strict time limit for wages claims will be fatal where a claimant (particularly a legally qualified one) was aware of the facts giving rise to the claim months before the limitation period expired and cannot show it was not reasonably feasible to present in time.

Legal authorities cited

Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] EAT 108

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.23(2)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.23(4)

Case details

Case number
3200280/2024
Decision date
10 June 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Solicitor
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No