Case 3201777/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Serla v S&T (UK) Limited (in administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201777/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Serla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant withdrew the complaints for unpaid pension contributions and unpaid expenses after those matters had been resolved by the Respondent. The judgment records those complaints as dismissed following withdrawal. The Respondent’s counterclaims were also withdrawn, but they are not part of the extracted claimant claims.
The Tribunal held that the Claimant’s holiday pay claim was in time. It accepted that the relevant payment date was 28 February 2019, after termination on 20 February 2019, so the Early Conciliation period was started within the applicable three-month limit. The claim covered both statutory holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and contractual holiday pay under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal did not decide whether the alleged verbal variation allowing carry-over of additional leave was made; that issue was left for the full hearing.
The unpaid commission claim was brought as a wages deduction claim under s.23 ERA 1996 and in the alternative as a contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. On the Claimant’s own case, the commission became due when contracts were signed in late 2016, so both routes were outside the primary three-month time limit by the time Early Conciliation was started in 2019. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had chosen to wait for payment, which was understandable, but that it was still reasonably practicable to bring an earlier claim. It applied the principle in Dedman and held that the Claimant was fixed with the error in his adviser’s time-limit advice. The Tribunal therefore dismissed both the statutory and contractual commission claims for want of jurisdiction and noted that, in any event, the contractual claim exceeded the £25,000 cap and would be more suitably pursued in the County Court if the Claimant wished to do so.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint for unpaid pension contributions; withdrawn after the Respondent resolved it. The judgment records dismissal following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint for unpaid expenses; withdrawn after the Respondent resolved it. The judgment records dismissal following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the ERA was held to have been presented in time and was listed for a full hearing; the merits were not decided in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid commission claim brought as a deduction from wages claim under s.23 ERA 1996 was found out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Alternative contractual commission claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 was found out of time by one day and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances [1974] ICR 53 CA
- reasonably practicable
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.