Case 2604133/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Papadopoulou v Essential Site Skills Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2604133/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
- Venue
- Midlands East Tribunal via Cloud Video Platform
- Panel members
- Ms J Bonser, Mr C Goldson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Papadopoulou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Papadopoulou brought complaints of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, and claims arising from non-payment of September and October 2020 wages and a £5,000 lump sum. The race complaints arose from a short email exchange on 24 April 2018 that included the subject line "Bloody Greeks". The tribunal accepted that the claimant knew of the relevant emails when they were sent but did not pursue a claim at the time.
The tribunal held that the direct race discrimination and harassment complaints were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It considered the length of the delay, the claimant's reasons for waiting, and the likely evidential prejudice to the respondent, and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those claims were therefore dismissed.
On the payment dispute, the tribunal found that before 15 June 2020 the parties had reached an enforceable agreement that the claimant would stop working on 1 July 2020, remain employed until 31 October 2020, receive her normal pay during that period, and receive a net £5,000 on termination. It rejected the respondent's case that no binding agreement existed and found that Ms Storer was aware of the arrangement. The tribunal also found that the P45 leaving date of 31 August 2020 reflected payroll administration after payments stopped, not an earlier termination of employment.
The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to pay salary for September and October 2020, together with the failure to pay the £5,000 lump sum, amounted to unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. It ordered the respondent to pay damages in the net sum of £8,690.40 and directed that tax be accounted for on that sum or that the appropriate grossed-up amount be paid if the claimant had to account for tax.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the direct race discrimination complaint was made out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the race-related harassment complaint was made out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's September and October 2020 wages and treated that failure as an unauthorised deduction from wages; no separate monetary split was made for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found an enforceable agreement that the claimant would remain employed until 31 October 2020, be paid normal pay during July to October 2020, and receive a net £5,000 lump sum on termination. | Upheld | — | £8,690 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,690
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Shamoon comparator test
- Igen/Madarassy burden of proof
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal v Keeble factors
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal harassment test
- s.27 ERA 1996 wages definition
- Greg May v Dring properly payable test
- Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Sweeney outstanding at termination
- Rock-It Cargo Ltd v Green contract connected with employment
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.