Case 2301796/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Marcelo Narcisco Felicio v Hotrocks Food & Drink Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301796/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chapman KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Marcelo Narcisco Felicio
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Chapman KC sat alone on 26 October 2022. The Tribunal first dealt with limitation. It found that the relevant deadline for presenting the claims, after allowing for ACAS early conciliation under s.207B ERA 1996, was 16 April 2021. The ET1 was not presented until 13 May 2021, so the claims were out of time.
The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's case that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It found that Mr Marcelo Narcisco Felicio was aware of a potential legal claim by 20 December 2020, had been able to engage with ACAS between late December 2020 and early February 2021, and had not shown that limited English, use of the wrong email address, or an asserted psychological condition prevented timely presentation. No supportive medical evidence was before the Tribunal, and it concluded that the burden on reasonable practicability had not been discharged.
Because the time-limit point was dispositive, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims for unlawful deduction of wages during a notice period, failure to pay outstanding accrued holiday pay, failure to pay a week in hand, and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The Respondent's separate strike-out application under rule 37 was noted, but the Judge said that, if it had been necessary to decide it, the materials available would have allowed the hearing to proceed safely.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction of wages during a notice period. The Tribunal held the ET1 was presented out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for outstanding accrued holiday pay on termination. Dismissed as time-barred; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as failure to pay a week in hand. Dismissed as time-barred; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. Dismissed as time-barred; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.11(4)(a) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability
- Dedman v British Buildings [1974] ICR 53 (CA)
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490
- Walls Meat v Khan [1979] IRLR 52 (CA)
- rule 37 strike out
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.