Ms S Belton v Natures Journey Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 6027753/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaints of unlawful deduction of wages; accrued but unpaid annual leave on termination and partly unpaid notice pay were brought out of the primary time limit. The Claimant has not provided evidence for why it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claims in time. I therefore dismiss the claims.[2]The application for legal costs does not succeed.[3]The claim for injury to feelings is misconceived and does not succeed.REASONS
[1]The Claimant brings claims for: 1.1. Unpaid wages 1.2. Partly unpaid notice pay 1.3. Accrued but unpaid holiday pay outstanding on the termination of her employment. 1.4. Injury to feelings.[2]She also applies for her legal costs. Attendance[3]Notice of this hearing was sent to the parties on 31 October 2025. An email reminding the parties of the hearing today was sent yesterday at 2.45pm. The Claimant did not attend. The Second Respondent sent written submissions. The First Respondent was unlikely to attend: it is in voluntary liquidation.[4]My clerk telephoned the Claimant who said she did not know about the hearing today and could not attend. While she expressed some uncertainty about the way forward, she also suggested she was happy for the hearing to go ahead in her absence. She confirmed that she had been paid the sums set out in the Secretary of State’s response (£5,447) but said that this was not everything that she was owed. She said she had moved house since bringing her claim, but my clerk established that this was after the date the Notice of Hearing was sent.[5]I considered Rule 47: If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[6]I must take at face value that the Claimant said she was not aware of the hearing, but equally the Tribunal sent her two documents (one by post and one by email) informing her about it. The Claimant also indicated her willingness for the hearing to go ahead in her absence. Having regard to the outstanding issues it seemed to me proportionate to do so: the Tribunal had acted reasonably in seeking to inform the Claimant of her hearing and she had indicated a willingness for the hearing to go ahead. The claim form was well-written and contained the relevant facts and I had good written submissions from the Second Respondent. It was in accordance with the overriding objective for me to conduct the hearing in the parties absence in those circumstances, especially to avoid delay and save expense.Findings of Fact
[7]Having considered all the material available to me: in particular the claim form and responses. I make the following findings of fact:[8]The Claimant’s last payment of wages was due on 28 February 2025. She states this expressly in her claim form. The effective date of termination of her employment was 10 March 2025.[9]She presented her claim on 26 July 2025 after a period of ACAS early conciliation between 28 May 2025 and 3 June 2026.[10]The Claimant’s claim for legal costs is based on the First Respondent’s behaviour prior to the claim being made and its refusal to engage meaningfully in resolving the issue.[11]The Claimant claims £7,255.42 in respect of her lost wages, notice and holiday pay. She has received £5,447.43 from the Secretary of State, there being a legal limit to the amount that it can pay in such circumstances.Legal Principles
[12]The time limit for unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay claims and contractual claims (including for notice) is the same. The claim must be brought within 3 months (i.e. three months minus a day) but any time for ACAS early conciliation is not counted if it began within the primary time limit. In those circumstances, a person has a month from the end of ACAS early conciliation to present their claim. I refer to section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; Regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and Regulation 7 of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. Time runs from the date the payment was due, or in the case of the contract claim, from the effective date of termination of the employment.[13]The remedy of injury to feelings is not available in claims for unlawful deduction of wages; contract claims or holiday pay claims. I have no power to make such an award.[14]Rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 provides that I have the power to consider making a costs order where I consider that— (a) a party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted,Analysis
[15]All three money claims have been presented beyond the primary time limit: 15.1. Time started to run for the unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay claims when the Claimant expected to be paid. According to her claim this was 28 February 2025. The primary time limit expired on 27 May 2025. ACAS early conciliation began outside this period on 28 May and therefore that time cannot be added into the calculation. These claims were therefore brought 2 months out of time. 15.2. Time started to run in the contract claim (for the remaining notice period left unpaid) from 10 March 2025. The primary time limit ran out on 9 June 2025. ACAS early conciliation began within the primary time limit period and therefore the time limit to bring the claim is extended to a month from the end of the conciliation period ie 3 July 2025. Thus the contract claim was presented 23 days out of time.[16]A claimant can seek to persuade me to extend time if they can show it was not reasonably practicable to bring their claims in time. On the claim form there is no indication of this. Even if the Respondent had been reluctant to engage meaningfully, that would not have made it somehow not feasible to bring the claim in time, indeed to the contrary. While the Claimant has indicated in her claim that she experienced injured feelings and poor mental health there is insufficient detail for me to be able to find that her mental state made it unfeasible for her to fill in her claim form online. By 26 July she had done this intelligently and in detail: there is too little in the claim form for me to find somehow that she was so unwell that she could not have done this earlier. My power as a Tribunal judge comes only from the statute I must apply. I do not have power beyond it even if I thought it were fair to extend time.[17]Thus the money claims were brought out of the primary time limit and I am not persuaded that it was not reasonably practicable to have brought them in time and therefore they do not succeed.[18]Even if I am wrong as to the starting point, and all claims arose at the effective date of termination, my decision would have been the same.[19]As to the application for legal costs, this is based on either the First Respondent’s conduct prior to the claim or its failure to engage meaningfully with the issue. Rule 64 only gives me power to consider its conduct of the proceedings. Further, a refusal to engage meaningfully is not on its own unreasonable conduct: there can be good reasons not to do so. The liquidator here has responded to the claim. I do not therefore grant the application for legal costs.[20]As to the claim for injured feelings, this is misconceived because it is not a remedy that is available in relation to the claims that have been made. I could not have awarded it even if the claims had been brought in time.[21]For all those reasons I dismiss all claims. Approved by: