Case 2501717/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 2501717/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr V Tatarenco Respondent (1): SLAM Transport Ltd Respondent (2): Livi London Ltd Heard at Newcastle In person
The tribunal considered preliminary issues about whether the claimant had sufficient continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, whether he was an employee, worker or self-employed while working for the respondents, and whether the unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages complaints were presented in time.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have the requisite two years' service for unfair dismissal and that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented almost 11 months after his employment had terminated. It also considered the claimant likely to be a worker for the purposes of the unlawful deduction from wages complaint, but found that any entitlement ended no later than the sick leave period from 28 February to 9 March 2023 and that the wages complaint was out of time.
The tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear either the unfair dismissal complaint or the unlawful deduction from wages complaint, and dismissed the claims.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant did not have two years' service and the claim was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.