Case 3200157/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Silarski v Mr B Haehndel and Ms M Hahnde (Eckhardt Data & Outsourcing Services Ltd now e-dms.de) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200157/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Silarski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing conducted by audio telephone with the Claimant appearing in person and no representation or attendance for the Respondents. The only complaint before the tribunal was an unlawful deduction of wages claim relating to pension contributions.
The tribunal held that the claim was issued outside the time limit required by section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented the claim within the statutory 3-month time limit.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned unlawful deduction of wages in the form of pension contributions. The tribunal held that it was issued outside the section 23 ERA 1996 time limit, found it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it within the statutory 3-month period, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- statutory 3-month time limit
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.