Case 3201839/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Padiasek v Merseyside Academy Consultancy and Publishing Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201839/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Padiasek
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Padiasek's employment with Merseyside Academy Consultancy and Publishing Ltd ended on 2 April 2023. The Tribunal recorded that her claims for Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Notice Pay and Holiday Pay were presented out of time, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear those claims.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's unlawful deductions from wages claims concerning the period before 29 April 2023 were presented out of time and outside its jurisdiction. Her unlawful deductions from wages claims after 29 April 2023 were found not well founded and were dismissed.
No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment. Reasons were given orally, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment described this as Automatic Unfair Dismissal and recorded that it was presented out of time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this as Notice Pay and recorded that it was presented out of time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions from wages claims before 29 April 2023 were out of time and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction; claims after 29 April 2023 were not well founded and were dismissed. | 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.