Case 1405494/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Fernandes v K3 Business Technologies Ltd (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1405494/2020
- Decision date
- 28 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Fernandes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr E Fernandes brought complaints against K3 Business Technologies Ltd. (In Administration) for breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, and unpaid holiday pay. The respondent did not attend and no response had been received.
Employment Judge Le Grys held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear each of the complaints. The reason recorded was that the claim had been presented out of time, and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time.
No remedy or monetary award was recorded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint because the claim was presented out of time and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint because the claim was presented out of time and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unpaid holiday pay complaint because the claim was presented out of time and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.