Case 1400823/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. James Sokolowski v Carnival plc (t/a “Carnival UK”) Hearing: Public Preliminary Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400823/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. James Sokolowski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Carnival plc was not Mr. Sokolowski's employer at any relevant time. It found that from 2015 onwards he worked under successive Seafarer’s Employment Agreements naming Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd or Fleet Maritime Services International Ltd, while Carnival plc was identified as the shipowner. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that those companies were separate Bermuda entities, rejected the claimant's case that the arrangements were a sham, and found no evidence of any novation making Carnival plc his employer.
The Tribunal relied on the written contracts, payslips, and the parties' conduct. It noted that no direct offer of employment by Carnival plc was made or accepted, that the claimant's tours of duty were governed by the relevant SEA, that the payslips did not identify Carnival plc as employer, and that the claimant accepted in December 2020 that he was 'out of contract'. It also relied on the claimant's rejection in April 2021 of a proposed Aurora contract and in July 2021 of a further offer, which it regarded as inconsistent with his case that he was still bound as an employee of Carnival plc.
On jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that it could not hear the ordinary unfair dismissal claim because Carnival plc had not continuously employed the claimant for two years. It also said the ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A, and wrongful dismissal/notice pay claims were out of time. On the whistleblowing claim under s.47B, the Tribunal did not decide timeliness at the PPH, referring to Woodward v Abbey National plc and BP v Elstone, and indicated that issue could be determined at any final merits hearing if needed.
The judgment order stated that the claims identified in paragraph 3 were, subject to the stay in paragraphs 6-7, struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) or dismissed on the merits. The stay allowed time for any amendment application by 7 July 2023 and, if made, extended matters until the amendment application was determined or 4pm on 27 October 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.94-98 ERA 1996. The Tribunal held Carnival plc was not the claimant's employer and lacked jurisdiction because the respondent had not continuously employed him for two years. The reasons also said the claim was out of time; the order in paras. 6-7 was subject to a stay for any amendment application. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. The Tribunal held Carnival plc was not the claimant's employer and said the claim was out of time. The PPH order was stated to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) or dismissed on the merits, subject to the stay in paras. 6-7. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim. The Tribunal held Carnival plc was not the claimant's employer and said the claim was presented out of time. The PPH order was subject to the stay in paras. 6-7. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s.47B ERA 1996. The Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction on the claimant's case that Carnival plc was his employer, but it declined at the PPH to decide timeliness, referring to Woodward v Abbey National plc and BP v Elstone. The order was stated to be subject to the stay in paras. 6-7. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Burden of proof
- Clark v Harney Westwood & Riegels
- Lawson v Serco
- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Woodward v Abbey National plc
- BP v Elstone
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.