Ms A Telhai and Mr A Hodo v Mr G S Ghag: 3301515/2024 and 3301516/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3301515/2024, 3301516/2024

Between

Ms A Telhai and Mr A HodoClaimant

Mr G S GhagRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Findlay

In person for claimant

In person for respondent

Date 17 September 2025

JUDGMENT

The claimants’ claims of unauthorised deduction of wages and breach of contract are dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The Hearing: Mr Hodo did not originally join the hearing as the tribunal only held contact details for the first claimant, Ms Telhai. Mr Hodo and Ms Telhai are divorced, and the first claimant asked that she should be addressed as Ms Telhai during the hearing.

[2]At my request, the first claimant provided the second claimant's e-mail address and a link to the hearing was sent to him. Initially the second claimant could not turn on his camera, but eventually he did. He accepted that he already knew about the hearing date from the first claimant.

[3]At a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Anstis on the 29th of May 2025, the Judge permitted the claims to go ahead as claims of unlawful deduction from wages or breach of contract. It appears that limited details of the claims were able to be identified on that occasion, as only the amount of Mr Hodo’s claim was identified, and it is stated that in the case of the first claimant the amount of the claim “remained to be described”. The respondent denied that he had employed either claimant or that the first claimant had worked for the chip shop business in which he has an interest.

[4]Judge Anstis directed the first claimant to provide a schedule of loss by the 17th of July 2025, setting out the amount of her claim for unauthorised deductions or breach of contract and the period or periods to which it related, and how she had calculated it.

[5]That schedule of loss appears at page four of the bundle that was provided for today’s hearing in accordance with the directions. It indicates that the first claimant alleged that she worked for the respondent from the 20th of March 2022 until the 20th of August 2023. This indicated that the claim of at least of the first claimant maybe out of time as the ACAS certificate which she obtained was dated the 23rd of December 2023 and the claim was not brought until 3rd February 2024.

[6]Accordingly, I explained the issue to the parties and heard from both claimants about the alleged date of termination of their employment, and in the case of the first claimant about her last payment date (the second claimant says that he was not paid but should have been by the end of August 2023). Both claimants also had an opportunity to address me about the reasons for the delay in making the claims and the respondent had an opportunity to ask questions about these matters.

[7]At one stage, the first claimant became upset and raised her voice when talking about the reasons for the delay. I adjourned the hearing for 5 minutes to enable her to collect herself.

[8]The issue: The issue determined was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the claims given the date upon which they were presented.

[9]Findings of Fact: The first claimant accepted that the last day upon which she alleged that she worked for the respondent was the 20th of August 2023, and that the last payment by the respondent to her was made on the 21st of August 2023. The second claimant stated that the last the date on which he worked for the respondent was the 26th of August 2023 and that he expected to be paid by the end of August for that and was not.

[10]The date upon which the first claimant contacted ACAS in accordance with the early conciliation rules was the 23rd of December 2023 and she was given her certificate on the 8th of January 2024. The claim was received on the 3rd of February 2024.The second claimant never obtained an early conciliation certificate but, for these purposes, I treated his claim as if it was covered by regulation 3 (1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014.

[11]Both claimants said that they had not initially made a claim because they had been contacting the respondent by e-mail and letter about their complaints but had not received any replies. The second claimant said that he did not make any efforts to find out about making a claim himself but had agreed that his former wife could include him on the claim after she had received some information about how to do so from the Citizens Advice Bureau. I accepted this evidence.

[12]The first claimant said that she had not initially made the claim because she was trying to get a reply from the respondent to show proof that he had received her letters, which she thought she had to do. She said that she was also grieving for a close friend who had died in September 2023. This was someone that she had stayed with for a number of years when she initially came to the UK. She said that she was also trying to deal with issues related to the accommodation which was leased to her by the respondent and that in addition she was trying to deal with her children including her son who had “glue ear”. I accepted her evidence about these matters.

[13]However, the first claimant stated that she had contacted the Citizens Advice Bureau and received some advice about bringing an Employment Tribunal claim before she contacted ACAS. Although she is not clear about the date, it must therefore have been on or before 23 December 2023. She said that the Citizens Advice Bureau had guided her through the process. She thought that the Citizens Advice Bureau had explained to her that there was a time limit when she first contacted them, although her recollection was “blurred”. I find that it is likely that the Citizens Advice Bureau did explain to her that there were time limits that had to be complied with. The claim form was completed by the 1st claimant rather than the CAB. She said the main reason that she had delayed bringing her claim, apart from the grief she experienced, was that she was dealing with her children. I accepted this evidence.

[14]Relevant Law: The relevant time limits are set out in article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 in respect of breach of contract and in section 23, subsections 2, 3 and 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of unauthorised deduction of wages.

[15]Section 23(2) Provides that subject to subsection 4, an Employment Tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with, in the case of a complaint of a deduction by the employer, the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made.

[16]Under subsection 3, where complaint is made under this section in respect of a series of deductions, the references in subsection 2 are to the last deduction in this series. Subsection 4 provides that where the Employment Tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint under this section to be presented before the end of the relevant period of three months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.

[17]Regulation 7 of the 1994 order is in similar terms, except that the period of three months begins with the effective date of termination of the contract giving rise to the claim.

[18]The meaning of “reasonably practicable” was considered in the case of Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy

2019 EWCA Civ. 2490

by Underhill LJ at paragraph 12. The phrase should be given a liberal interpretation in favour of the employee and is not limited to physical impracticability. Another way of putting it is whether it was “reasonably feasible” for the claimants to present their claims in time, and, if the delay was due to ignorance, was that ignorance reasonable in all the circumstances? Neither claimant suggested they had made a mistake about time limits as such. In deciding whether ignorance is reasonable, I should take account of the enquiries the claimant or his/her advisers made or should have made.

[19]Application of Law to Facts: In respect of both types of claim, that is both unauthorised deduction of wages and breach of contract, each claimant’s claims were presented outside of the primary three months’ time limit. In the case of the first claimant, on her own case the time limit for the breach of contract claim expired on the 19th of November 2023 (3 months after her employment ended), and in respect of the unauthorised deductions claim, by the 20th of November 2023 (3 months after her last payment, from which she says a deduction was made). In respect of the second claimant, the three-month period in respect of the breach of contract claim expired on the 25th of November 2023, and in respect of the unauthorised deductions claim, by the 30th of November 2023 at the latest (as he says he should have been paid the outstanding amount by the end of August).

[20]Article 8B of the 1994 Order and section 23(3A) of the 1996 Act do not apply to extend time, as the claimants did not contact ACAS until 23 December 2023, that is, after the primary limitation periods had expired.

[21]I therefore had to consider whether it was reasonably practicable, in the sense described above, for the claimants to have presented their claims within the initial three months period.

[22]Mr Hodo did not give me any reason why he did not present his claim within the initial three months’ time limit except to say that he had been contacting the respondent by various means and waiting for a response. He did not take any steps to find out whether there was anything else he could do, such as applying to the Employment Tribunal. Nowadays information about the Employment Tribunal is readily available online, and in my judgment if Mr Hodo was concerned about being unpaid for his work, he could (and should) easily have found out about his right to apply to the Employment Tribunal and about the time limit for doing so within the primary time limit applicable to his claims.

[23]In those circumstances, I conclude that it would have been reasonably feasible for Mr Hodo to have brought his claim within the primary time limit, and therefore the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider his claims, and they are dismissed.

[24]In respect of the first claimant, Ms Telhai, I accept that initially she was overwhelmed by grief for her friend’s death, by the challenges of dealing with her children and by accommodation issues, so that it would not have been reasonably practicable for her to present her claim within the initial three-month period. However, by some point in December 2023, she had overcome her difficulties sufficiently to get in contact with the Citizens Advice Bureau, which had agreed to assist her with her employment and other matters, and which had explained that there was a time limit for making an Employment Tribunal claim. She was also advised by the Citizens Advice Bureau that she would need to contact ACAS about making a claim, which she was able to do by the 23rd of December 2023.

[25]She received her certificate from ACAS by the 8th of January 2024, yet did not make her claim to the tribunal until the 3rd of February 2024, almost 4 weeks later.

[26]Despite the challenges she was facing, she was able to follow the Citizens Advice Bureau’s advice to go to ACAS by the 23rd of December and was aware by that time that there were time limits which she would have to adhere to. I find that it is likely that the CAB would have told her what the time limits were, and even if they did not, she should have checked what they were and should have acted promptly thereafter. I do not consider her subsequent delay in bringing her claim after the 8th of January 2024 to be reasonable. She was on notice by that stage that there were time limits which applied and therefore of the need for urgency, but she has not satisfied me that it was reasonable for her to delay for a further three weeks and five days before submitting her claim to the Tribunal. In my view, it would not be reasonable for her to delay for more than a week after receiving the ACAS certificate before presenting her claim in these circumstances. She did not tell me of any particular difficulties that she was experiencing in January 2024 which would have prevented her from doing that.

[27]In all those circumstances, therefore, although I find that it was not reasonably practicable for the first claimant to present her claims within the initial three month period, I do not consider that she presented her claims within such further period as was reasonable, and for that reason the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain her claims under article 7 of the 1994 Order or section 23 of the 1996 Act and her claims are dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Findlay 17 September 2025