Case 2217149/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Semeniuk v Centaur Construction Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217149/2023
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Semeniuk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Y Semeniuk brought claims against Centaur Construction Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages, said to cover £1,346 of unpaid salary, and breach of contract, said to cover £900 for a deposit. The respondent did not present a response and did not attend the 12 March 2024 hearing. The tribunal heard the claimant's evidence through an interpreter and found that his last day of work was 22 June 2023, with the alleged wage payment date being 27 June 2023 and the alleged deposit repayment date being 29 October 2022.
The tribunal held that both claims were out of time. Applying section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to the wages claim and Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1997 to the contract claim, it found the relevant deadlines were 26 September 2023 and 21 September 2023 respectively. It accepted that the claimant had researched his options online by August 2023 and understood he could pursue the matter, but found that it was reasonably practicable for him to present both claims within the time limits.
The tribunal also found that, even if time had not been reasonably practicable to comply with, the claims were not presented within a reasonable period afterwards because the claimant waited until 13 December 2023, hoping the matter could be resolved informally. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for £1,346 said to be unpaid wages was dismissed because it was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within the deadline and that the ACAS notification was also out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for non-return of a £900 deposit was dismissed because it was presented out of time under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1997; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable test
- within a reasonable period
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1997, Article 7
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.