Case 2300116/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Dias Cardoso v EPL Foods Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2300116/2023
Decision date: 31 August 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rea Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Dias Cardoso

Respondent

EPL Foods Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in its entirety. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The Tribunal also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.

The Tribunal also struck out the claimant's remaining complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract and breach of the Working Time Regulations. It found that those claims had been brought outside the statutory three-month time limit.

The claimant had said in her ET1 that the late presentation was due to pregnancy and a difficult birth. The Tribunal found that she had not provided medical evidence or a full explanation showing why this prevented her from bringing the claims during the period between termination of employment on 16 June 2022 and 9 January 2023.

On that basis, the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time and, in any event, that they were not presented within a further reasonable period. The judgment records that the claimant's claims in their entirety were struck out.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Struck out as brought outside the three-month statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.	Struck out	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Struck out as brought outside the three-month statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Struck out as brought outside the three-month statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.	Struck out	—	—
Working time regulations	Struck out as brought outside the three-month statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.