Case 2304404/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ryan Vlahos v Mitchells & Butler Retail Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304404/2019
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ryan Vlahos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims on 11 October 2019 for unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay and notice pay. By a case management order dated 9 April 2020, Employment Judge Hargrove required the claimant to explain by 1 May 2020 why the claims should not be struck out under rule 37, because they appeared on the face of the papers to have been presented about 2.5 years out of time.
The claimant replied on 28 April 2020, but the response did not address the specific question of why it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. The tribunal therefore struck out all claims for want of jurisdiction because they were out of time and had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Balogun on 10 June 2021 and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a notice pay claim; this has been mapped to breach_of_contract. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- reasonably practicable to present the claim in time
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.