Case 2202972/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Kidane Zegay v Mr B Boylan and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202972/2019
- Decision date
- 15 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Kidane Zegay
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed by a letter sent on 14 March 2019. The tribunal found that he read the email version by 15 March 2019 at the latest, so the effective date of termination was 15 March 2019. At the hearing the claimant confirmed that Mr B Boylan was not his employer, withdrew the claims against him, and the tribunal dismissed those complaints upon withdrawal. The correct respondent was Freedom Sportsline Ltd.
Applying the early conciliation rules, the tribunal found that the relevant extended limitation date for the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims was 28 July 2019. The ET1 was received on 9 August 2019. The tribunal held that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present those claims in time, and in any event the delay after any later awareness of the certificate was unreasonable. The unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were therefore dismissed as out of time.
The tribunal treated the holiday-pay complaints separately. It held that claims relating to holiday actually taken were out of time because the last leave taken was before October 2017, and the gap in payments meant any series of deductions had broken. By contrast, the claim said to arise from payment in lieu of unused holiday on termination was not finally decided at the preliminary hearing. The tribunal did not decide whether there had been a complete non-payment or a shortfall, and left that time-limit issue for the full merits hearing.
The redundancy payment issue was also left open on the merits. The tribunal held that the referral was not out of time because the claimant had referred the question to the tribunal within six months of the effective date of termination. The hearing listed for the full merits hearing was to deal with the unlawful deduction from wages complaint about holiday pay on termination and the redundancy payment only.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time under s.111(2) ERA 1996; the tribunal found the effective date of termination was 15 March 2019 and the ET1 was not presented by the extended deadline of 28 July 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim covered notice pay, holiday pay or otherwise and was dismissed as out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Working Time Regulations claims under regulations 14 and/or 16 were dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found that leave taken before October 2017 was outside the limit and the remaining reg. 14 point also failed on time limits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about an alleged shortfall in payments for holiday actually taken was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found the last leave taken was before October 2017 and any series of deductions had broken. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about payment in lieu of unused holiday on termination was not finally determined at this hearing; the tribunal left the time-limit issue to the full merits hearing. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 23 ERA 1996
- Bear Scotland v Fulton
- Revenue and Customs Comrs v Stringer
- Arora v Rockwell Automation Ltd
- section 164(1) ERA 1996
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.