Case 2207671/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Stoyanova-Bennadji v David Lloyd Leisure Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207671/2020
- Decision date
- 24 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Stoyanova-Bennadji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, unpaid holiday pay and breach of contract for unpaid notice pay. The respondent argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claims were presented out of time.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not properly instructed her solicitor to present tribunal proceedings and that there had been a misunderstanding about the scope of the solicitor's work. It found that the claimant knew by 18 June 2020 that the deadline was around 22 July 2020 and should have ensured before travelling to Sofia that either her solicitor was clearly instructed to present the claim or that she presented it herself.
The tribunal also considered, in the alternative, whether the claim was presented within a reasonable further period after the deadline. It found that the claimant's delay after returning from Sofia, after receiving no response from the solicitor, and after contacting ACAS was entirely unreasonable. The tribunal therefore concluded that it could not accept jurisdiction and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim was struck out because the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction, as it was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim was struck out because the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction, as it was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim was struck out because the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction, as it was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay claim was struck out because the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction, as it was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Or v Southend-on-Sea BC 1984 ICR 372, CA
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1973] IRLR 379
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.