Case 1305602/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person (assisted by Mr Evans, translator) v MKZS Investments Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305602/2023
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chivers Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person (assisted by Mr Evans, translator)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 21 October 2024 before Employment Judge Chivers, the tribunal dealt with limitation and withdrawal issues in claims brought by Mr R El Bouni and Mr D Chiodi against MKZS Investments Limited. The first claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was held to have been presented out of time. The tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and the claim was struck out.
The first claimant’s redundancy payment complaint under s.135 and s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996 was also out of time, but the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time, so that claim was allowed to proceed. The first claimant’s holiday pay claim under regulations 13, 13A and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was out of time and the tribunal found no grounds to extend time, so it was struck out.
As to the second claimant, the unfair dismissal claim and the statutory redundancy pay claim were struck out upon withdrawal. The second claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay, pleaded as payment below the National Minimum Wage, was out of time and struck out, and the holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations was also out of time and struck out. No monetary award was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant. The tribunal held the complaint was not presented in time, found that it was not reasonably practicable for it to be presented in time under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996, and struck it out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | First claimant. The complaint of non-payment of statutory redundancy payment under s.135 and s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996 was out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time, so the claim was allowed to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | First claimant. The complaint for unpaid holiday pay under regulations 13, 13A and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was out of time; the tribunal found no grounds to extend time and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Second claimant. The claim for non-payment of statutory redundancy pay was struck out upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.135 and s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable to extend time
- regulations 13, 13A and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.