Case 2300941/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Skarbek-Cielecka v Green Cross Recruitment and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300941/2018
- Decision date
- 23 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms B Skarbek-Cielecka
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs B Skarbek-Cielecka presented her claim on 16 March 2018 after early conciliation from 10 January to 7 February 2018. In later correspondence she quantified three heads against Green Cross Recruitment and Alpha Medical Support: £70 described as an unauthorised payment to her employers, £269.94 for unauthorised deductions from wages, and £34.54 for unpaid holiday pay. At the hearing on 23 May 2019, Employment Judge Ferguson sat alone and first determined whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The Tribunal held that the claimant's employment ended on 2 November 2017 and that the last alleged deduction also took place on that date. The primary time limit under s.23 ERA 1996 and Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 therefore expired on 1 February 2018, and the effect of s.207B ERA 1996 and s.30B WTR 1998 was to extend that deadline to 7 March 2018. The claim form was presented on 16 March 2018, nine days late.
Applying the 'not reasonably practicable' test, the Judge found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. The claimant knew there was a deadline before her CAB appointment on 15 March 2018, had some familiarity with tribunal proceedings from a recent claim against another employer, and took no steps to submit the claim earlier. The stress and other difficulties she described did not prevent her from filing before the deadline. The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant later quantified this head at £70 in her schedule of remedies, described as an unauthorised payment to her employers. The judgment does not identify a separate statutory label for it and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant later quantified this head at £269.94. It was one of the complaints dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant later quantified this head at £34.54 for unpaid holiday pay. It was dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- Regulation 30 WTR 1998
- s.207B ERA 1996
- s.30B WTR 1998
- not reasonably practicable
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.