Case 2501706/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Murray, a friend For the v Miss J Charalambous, Peninsula — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501706/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Interpreter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Murray, a friend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's employer at all material times was the second respondent, PYA1 Ltd. The proceedings against the first respondent, Mr Polat Ackicek, were dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer.
The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 94 ERA 1996 could not proceed because the claimant did not have the qualifying period of continuous employment required by section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider that complaint.
The claimant's application to amend the claim form to add a claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996 was refused. The judgment then disposed of the remaining claims on limitation grounds rather than on their merits.
The wrongful dismissal claim was out of time under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The claim for unlawful deductions from wages was out of time under sections 23(2) to (4) ERA 1996, and the claim for pay in respect of accrued but untaken holiday was out of time under regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant did not have the qualifying period of continuous employment required by section 108 ERA 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was not brought within the time limit prescribed by article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was not brought within the time limit prescribed by sections 23(2) to (4) ERA 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for pay in respect of accrued but untaken holiday was not brought within the time limit prescribed by regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 108 ERA 1996
- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 104 ERA 1996
- article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- sections 23(2) to (4) ERA 1996
- regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.