Dr M Abdulla v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: 6008525/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6008525/2024

Between

Dr M AbdullaClaimant

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Tynan

Mr N Roberts (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 29 June 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claim is therefore dismissed.

REASONS

[1]I apologise to the parties for the delay in providing a decision in this matter. In spite of the relative brevity of these reasons, as the broader issues were not straightforward, I wanted an opportunity to reflect upon them before coming to a decision.

[2]Save where otherwise indicated, any page references in these Reasons correspond to the 71-page bundle.

[3]The hearing was listed to decide the Respondent’s application to strike out the claim and the Claimant’s application to amend his claim.

[4]On 20 April 2026, the day before the hearing, the Claimant filed and served a six-page witness statement to which a further 32 pages of documents were appended. Any witness statements intended to be relied upon by either party were supposed to be served by 23 February 2026. Mr Roberts says it is a common theme of the Claimant’s conduct of this litigation. I offer no view on the matter.

[5]The Respondent’s application to strike out the claim is pursued on the grounds that the claim is said to have been presented out of time. The Claimant claims that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages in respect of occasional locum shifts he worked. Subject to his application to amend his claim, the claim is in respect of claimed unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages, namely in contravention of s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By his application to amend his claim, amongst other things, the Claimant seeks to pursue a separate but related complaint pursuant to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 that the Respondent refused to permit him to exercise his rights under regulations 13 and 13A. As the claim stands, however, it is brought pursuant to s.24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with reference to s.13. S.13(3) provides as follows: Where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions), the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker’s wages on that occasion. The section is concerned therefore with the payment of wages i.e. at the point they are paid (or at least payable) rather than when the wages in question are earned, namely when the worker provides their labour. This approach carries through to s.24(2), which provides that time for bringing a claim runs from the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made.

[6]In order to determine whether this claim was presented in time, it is first necessary for me to identify the date of the last alleged unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of which complaint is made.

[7]Mr Roberts, who represented the Respondent at a case management preliminary hearing on 15 September 2025 before Employment Judge M J Smith, says that the issues were discussed at length on that occasion and resolved on the basis, amongst other things, of the following question at paragraph 2.3 of the list of issues: Were the dates set out below the dates of the alleged deductions? a) 25 May 2022 b) 24 June 2022 c) 23 September 2022 d) 25 January 2023 e) 24 March 2023 f) 25 April 2023 g) 25 May 2023 h) 25 August 2023 i) 25 January 2024 j) 23 February 2024

[8]Mr Jupp did not represent the Claimant on 15 September 2025. However, the Claimant has been legally advised throughout and was represented on that occasion by experienced employment Counsel.

[9]By the conclusion of the case management hearing at the latest, the claim was proceeding on the basis that the last in the claimed series of unauthorised deductions was made on 23 February 2024. The dates had first been supplied by the Claimant in or around July 2025 as part of the process of seeking to agree a list of issues ahead of the hearing (pages 35 and 36).

[10]The Claimant now contends that the last in the alleged series of unauthorised deductions was made on 25 June 2024, namely when he was allegedly paid an incorrect sum by way of rolled up holiday pay in respect of a locum shift worked by him on 28 March 2024.

[11]The question is whether the Claimant should be held to the dates he first put forward in or around July 2025 and which were seemingly reiterated or at least adopted on his behalf by Counsel at the hearing on 15 September 2025.

[12]In Parekh v Brent London Borough Council

[2012] EWCA Civ. 1630

, Mummery LJ observed that where a List of Issues is agreed, “…that will, as a general rule, limit the issues at the substantive hearing to those in the list”. However, he went on to say that tribunals should not “stick slavishly” to any agreed list of issues, “…where to do so would impact the discharge of its core duty to hear and determine the case in accordance with the law and evidence.”

[13]In Z v Y

[2024] EAT 63

, the then President observed that the tribunal had been wrong to “slavishly stick” to a list of issues which had not replaced the pleaded claim. In that case the Respondent had accepted that, as pleaded, the Claimant’s case included the contention that her resignation was a final act of discrimination, something that had not been reflected in the list of issues.

[14]Whilst the Respondent does not accept that the claim includes any complaint in respect of the 28 March 2024 shift worked by the Claimant, Mr Roberts concedes that the claim will be in time should I decide that the 28 March 2024 shift forms part of the claim.

[15]The claim was accompanied by two-page Particulars of Claim (pages 18 and 19), which did not plead the specific payments of wages from which unauthorised deductions had allegedly been made. However, the Claimant sought a declaration pursuant to s.24(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, “an order for the payment of holiday pay accrued and unpaid pursuant to Regulation 13 and 13A WTR and s.13 ERA for the period between 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2024 (the Claim Period) (further to s.23(4A) ERA).”

[16]The ‘Claim Period’ is clear, even if it was perhaps intended to cover the period to 31 March 2024 rather than 1 April 2024, namely the two year period immediately preceding the start of the Respondent’s new leave year that coincided with amendments to the Working Time Regulations 1998, partly enacted in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Harpur Trust v Brazel

[2022] UKSC 21

[17]However, if the ‘Claim Period’ is clear, the question arises as to what matters within that period are covered by the claim. The order sought is for “payment of holiday pay accrued and unpaid” for the ‘Claim Period’ (my emphasis). In my judgment, the Claimant pleaded his case in accordance with the statutory provisions for recovery of unauthorised deductions, namely with reference to deductions allegedly made from his wages during the ‘Claim Period’. Indeed, it seems to me that, absent any claim pursuant to regulation 30 of the 1998 Regulations, there was no other basis upon which the claim could have been brought or pleaded. In other words, the Claimant could not pursue a complaint in respect of anticipated unauthorised deductions from his wages in respect of work he may have done during the Claim Period. As I have noted already, the last occasion on which wages were said by him not to have been paid was 23 February 2024. He does not address either this alleged unauthorised deduction, or the earlier alleged unauthorised deductions, in his witness statement. For example, he does not suggest that he was mistaken as to the dates or that the dates he provided were in fact the dates he worked, with the deductions occurring on some later date within the ‘Claim Period’.

[18]The Claimant seeks to bring his claim in time by arguing that a claimed unauthorised deduction from his wages on 25 June 2024, in respect of a shift worked by him on 28 March 2024, is the last in the series of deductions relied upon. Having notified his potential claims to acas on 3 June 2024 i.e. prior to that claimed deduction having been made, and having presented his claim to the employment tribunals within one month of issue of the early conciliation certificate, any complaint in respect of an unauthorised deduction made on 28 March 2024, but not 23 February 2024, would be in time. However, whilst the claimed deduction may predate his claim, it is outside the pleaded ‘Claim Period’. In my judgement, any complaint about his wages in respect of the shift worked on 28 March 2024, and accordingly the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the matter, did not arise on 28 March 2024, rather on 25 June 2024 when the wages properly payable on that occasion were not paid. Even if, which the Claimant has not obviously sought to argue, his wages ought to have been paid earlier, for example in May or even April 2024, the claimed deduction would still be outside the ‘Claim Period’. In which case, the Claimant’s rather belated reliance upon the 28 March 2024 shift is not simply a case of him providing amended further particulars of his claim, rather in my judgement it amounts to an attempt to amend his claim to add a complaint in respect of a claimed further deduction outside the ‘Claim Period’. There is no application by the Claimant to amend his claim to that effect. In any event, even if I were to treat the Claimant’s purported reliance upon the 25 June 2024 claimed deduction as an application to amend, its identification for the first time on 20 April 2026 means it is being introduced some 18 months or so out of time, with no explanation for the delay. I cannot see how an unexplained and hopelessly out of time complaint, nor indeed the other significantly out of time complaints indicated by the Claimant’s amendment application, can rescue his existing out of time complaints.

[19]In my judgement, adhering to the list of issues will not impact the discharge of the Tribunal’s core duty to determine the case in accordance with the law and evidence. I am satisfied that the list of issues reflects the claim that was brought by the Claimant. This is not a case where, on a fair reading of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has brought a claim in respect of the wages paid to him on 25 June 2024. Accordingly, when the Claimant notified his potential complaints to acas on 3 June 2024 and thereafter presented his claim to the employment tribunals, any complaint in respect of the identified series of claimed deductions, culminating in the deduction said to have been made on 23 February 2023, was out of time.

[20]The parties were granted permission to submit witness statements on the time issue. Putting aside that the Claimant’s witness statement was served very late in the day, it provided the Claimant with an opportunity to explain to the Tribunal why it may not have been reasonably practicable for him to notify his complaints to acas and thereafter present his claim to the employment tribunals in time. Instead, his witness statement is silent on this aspect. He has the burden of establishing that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claim in time, and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. He has failed to discharge his burden in the matter. Even assuming this might be a relevant consideration, he has not suggested for example that he was poorly advised by his former solicitors and/or Counsel.

[21]In the circumstances, I conclude that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the claim and that it should therefore be dismissed. Approved by: