Case 1800944/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Zaglago v The University of Sheffield — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800944/2023
- Decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Zaglago
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard from both parties on 8 September 2023 before Employment Judge Tegerdine. It first addressed the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint as a limitation issue under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found the claim was not presented within the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time.
The Tribunal also dealt with the claimant’s unauthorised deduction from wages claim. It found that this claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal was satisfied this claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996 and that, for section 111(2)(b), it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. It therefore held it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.