Case 2203557/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K. Chavdarov v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2203557/2020
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K. Chavdarov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims described in the judgment as unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments. The preliminary issue was whether the claim, presented on 16 June 2020, was out of time and, if so, whether it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The Tribunal found that the relevant limitation period, extended by early conciliation, ended on or before 15 June 2020, so the claim was presented one day late. It considered the Claimant's evidence about mental health, financial pressures, and the pressures of his new role during the Covid-19 pandemic, but found that he had not provided sufficient evidence showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The Tribunal noted that during the limitation period the Claimant had applied for many jobs, appealed his dismissal, started new employment, corresponded with the Respondent, and produced substantial materials for his new employer. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim, declined the request for an extension of time, and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented one day out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented one day out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented one day out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as arrears of pay. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented one day out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment referred to other payments but did not specify the legal basis. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented one day out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- not reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandrige Limited 1978 ICR 943, CA
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan 1979 ICR 52, CA
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372, CA
- Schutlz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd 1999 ICR 1202, CA
- Pittuck v DST Output (London) Ltd [2015] 12 WLUK 656
- Chouafi v London United Busways Ltd 2006 EWCA Civ 689, CA
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.