Case 2304174/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Striano v Taormina Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2304174/2018
- Decision date
- 22 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Striano
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Striano's claim against Taormina Ltd was heard at Croydon on 19 December 2019 before Employment Judge Wright. The judgment records that the claimant, an Italian national who did not speak English, had been dismissed on 2 June 2018 and later returned to the UK on 21 June 2018, where she found that she had lost her accommodation. She sought help from the CAB, contacted Anglo-Italian lawyers, and then instructed a European Registered Lawyer, but the tribunal found that the time limit issue was not identified until her current solicitors became involved. The claim form was first posted from Italy and received on 18 October 2018, then lost, and was resubmitted electronically on 22 November 2018 after tribunal staff supplied a dummy postcode.
Employment Judge Wright held that the claim was out of time under s.111 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had faced practical difficulties and had acted promptly in seeking advice, but found that there was no mistake about the termination date and that any incorrect advice from the adviser had to be treated as the claimant's fault. Relying on Riley v Tesco Stores Ltd and Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances, the tribunal concluded that it was bound by authority and had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, so it was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The reasons refer to unfair dismissal and also to notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments, but the written decision makes one jurisdictional finding only: the claim was presented out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Riley v Tesco Stores Ltd 1980 ICR 323
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances 1974 ICR 53 CA
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.