Case 2216908/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Erhan Karadag v Elide Venture Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216908/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Erhan Karadag
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Erhan Karadag, brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages against Elide Venture Ltd, later amended to include holiday pay. He said he had been engaged as Chief Operating Officer at £2,500 per month from 28 June 2023 and resigned on 28 July 2023 over non-payment. The respondent, through Mr Mangon (the claimant's flatmate), said the claimant was only shadowing him to gain insight into entrepreneurship. The tribunal granted the respondent an extension of time to file its response and allowed the claimant's amendment to add a holiday pay claim.
On the preliminary issue of time limits, Employment Judge Andrew Jack found that the claim was presented on 1 December 2023, about four months after the alleged deduction at the end of July 2023, and that early conciliation began after the normal three-month time limit had expired, so s.207B ERA did not extend time. The judge found that the claimant had not established on the balance of probabilities that his perception of risk of aggression and retaliation from Mr Mangon made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, noting that he had in fact lodged the claim on 1 December 2023 while still living with Mr Mangon. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction and the claim was dismissed.
Had jurisdiction existed, the judge would also have dismissed the substantive complaint. While accepting that the claimant performed tasks going beyond mere shadowing (including signing an NDA on the respondent's behalf), the judge considered the claimant's account of being offered a £2,500 per month COO role the day after starting a one-week minimum wage internship to be inherently implausible, found no documentary evidence of the alleged wage agreement, and was not satisfied that the £201 paid on 30 June 2023 was wages rather than partial repayment of a personal loan.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim presented on 1 December 2023, approximately one month outside the three-month time limit running from the alleged deduction at the end of July 2023. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The judge also recorded that, had jurisdiction existed, the substantive complaint would not have succeeded as the claimant had not established on the balance of probabilities that wages of £2,500 per month were agreed or due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | An amendment to add a claim for unpaid holiday pay (£287.33) was permitted on 4 December 2024 under Selkent and Vaughan v Modality Partnership. The judgment dismisses the claim as a whole on time limit / jurisdiction grounds; the holiday pay element is treated as part of the same unauthorised deduction from wages complaint under s.27 ERA and is dismissed on the same basis. The judgment does not separately adjudicate it; confidence on this being a distinct dismissed claim is therefore reduced. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Selkent
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
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.