Case 1801951/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Sztandera v Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801951/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Sztandera
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Sztandera presented a claim on 1 May 2019 for a protective award against Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration). The claimant did not attend the hearing but submitted written representations. The respondent did not enter an appearance and did not attend.
Employment Judge Lancaster found that the claim was outside the three-month period from 10 December 2018, as extended for the nine-day nominal period during which Early Conciliation stopped the clock. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have submitted the claim in time by 18 March 2019 and, in any event, that the claim was not presented within a reasonable time after that date.
The claimant said he had submitted an earlier claim on 23 January 2019 which was rejected because it did not include the ACAS Early Conciliation certificate number. The tribunal had no record of that earlier claim and found that, even on the claimant's account, he did not rectify the defect, apply to reinstate any rejected claim, or present a valid claim with the Early Conciliation number until 1 May 2019. The claim for a protective award was dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment describes this as a claim for a protective award. It was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to submit it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- reasonable time
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.