Case 1800947/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Satrovs v T Soanes & Son (Poultry) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800947/2020
- Decision date
- 23 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd This
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Shepherd in Leeds on 21 January 2021. The claimant, Mr V Satrovs, appeared in person with an interpreter. The respondent, T Soanes & Son (Poultry) Ltd, was represented by Mr Webster. The hearing was conducted partly by CVP video link.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was not presented within the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination. That claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments because they were not presented within the three-month period beginning with the date of payment of wages from which the deduction was made. Those claims were also dismissed.
The respondent's application for costs was refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented before the end of the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments because they were not presented before the end of the three-month period beginning with the date of payment of wages from which the deduction was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.