Case 3200928/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alim Posaci v Sumaron Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200928/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alim Posaci
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 15 September 2023 before Employment Judge Whittall, sitting at East London Hearing Centre with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not in attendance, the tribunal considered the claimant's list of claims. The judgment records that the list of claims had been presented out of time.
The tribunal held that, because the claims were out of time, it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. All of the claims were therefore dismissed. The dismissed claims were breach of contract under the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and unlawful deduction of wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This was the claim for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 1 ERA 1996; it was dismissed as out of time and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.