Case 1308530/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Renata Stochmal v Vinci Construction Terrassement UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308530/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Renata Stochmal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Stochmal worked for Vinci Construction Terrassement UK Ltd from 27 January 2022 to 5 August 2022 and resigned on 29 July 2022. The tribunal recorded that she did not have two years' service. The claims before it were an automatic unfair dismissal claim based on alleged protected disclosures, an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and a claim described as 'personal data processing'. The tribunal also noted that she had suggested discrimination, but held that no discrimination claim was properly pleaded in the ET1 and particulars.
On the time-limit issue, the tribunal applied section 111 ERA 1996 and the 'reasonably practicable' test, with reference to the authorities it cited on ignorance of time limits and the need for a claimant to explain why a claim was not presented in time. It found that the claimant contacted ACAS within the primary period, but the contemporaneous correspondence was about payslips, tax issues, correct data, and data protection matters rather than dismissal or protected disclosures. The tribunal found that she was not misled by ACAS and was not incapacitated, and that with reasonable diligence she could have discovered her employment rights and the relevant time limits between August and November 2022. It noted that she reconnected with ACAS on 9 November 2023, completed Early Conciliation on 13 November 2023, and filed a valid ET1 on 2 December 2023.
The tribunal held that the automatic unfair dismissal claim was out of time and dismissed it, finding that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, in any event, that she did not bring it within a reasonable period after later research. It dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' service and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it. It also dismissed the 'personal data processing' claim because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a claim of that nature. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal held it was presented out of time, found it was reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit, and also found that any later delay after the claimant resumed research was not reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' service when her employment ended and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim described as 'personal data processing'. The tribunal held there was no jurisdiction to hear a claim of that nature in the Employment Tribunal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
- Asda Stores v Kauser
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.