Case 2204495/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mariusz Rydzicki v Narbuild Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2204495/2025
- Decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moyler REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mariusz Rydzicki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the claimant and his representative under rule 47. The respondent was represented by Mr K Dekar, Director.
The Tribunal found that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and was dismissed. The short judgment does not provide a separate analysis by claim category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and was dismissed. The short judgment does not provide a separate analysis by claim category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and was dismissed. The short judgment does not provide a separate analysis by claim category. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- reasonably practicable time limit
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.