Case 3201880/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Polhossy v Endeavour Automotive Limited TELEPHONE PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201880/2020
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Polhossy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented his ET1 on 16 July 2020, but it was rejected because the respondent named on the form did not match the early conciliation certificate. He resubmitted the claim on 19 October 2020 with the respondent corrected to Endeavour Automotive Ltd, and the tribunal held under Rule 13(4) that 19 October 2020 was the presentation date. Working back from that date, and allowing for early conciliation, the tribunal found the relevant primary time limit expired on 20 July 2020.
The tribunal dealt with complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of the Working Time Regulations, failure to permit accompaniment at a 15 November 2019 meeting, direct sex discrimination, and direct race discrimination. The alleged wage claim concerned pay, commission and holiday pay from January 2020 to termination. The working time complaint concerned rest-break failures on up to three occasions, the last probably on 3 January 2020. The sex discrimination allegations concerned holiday allocation, birthday leave and being required to move cars, and the race discrimination allegation concerned an autumn 2019 incident where Mr Andrew Gore bought coffee or cookies for others but not for the claimant.
The claimant said the delay in presenting the claim was caused by the pandemic, illness, his return to Hungary, the need to find work, and later further illness and a new job. The tribunal found that he knew of his rights and the time limits, had already used Acas, and had not adequately explained the further two-month delay after being told on 15 August 2020 that the claim needed correction. It held that the non-discrimination complaints were out of time when it was reasonably practicable to have presented them, and that the sex and race discrimination claims were also time-barred because the last relevant act was 3 January 2020, or 20 March 2020 at the latest, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal considered the discrimination claims to have little merit and dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction; no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on time grounds; the claim concerned alleged underpayment of wages, commission and holiday pay between 1 January 2020 and the termination date, but the tribunal found the last relevant wage date was 28 April 2020 and the claim was still out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on time grounds; the alleged rest-break failures were said to have occurred on up to three occasions, the last probably on 3 January 2020 and no later than 20 March 2020, but the tribunal would not extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on time grounds; this was the claim that Mr Andrew Gore called the claimant to a meeting on 15 November 2019 without permitting him to be accompanied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as time-barred. The tribunal considered the sex discrimination allegations about holiday allocation, birthday leave and being required to move cars, but found the last relevant act was 3 January 2020, or 20 March 2020 at the latest, and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as time-barred. The allegation concerned an autumn 2019 incident where Mr Andrew Gore bought coffee or cookies for others in the team but not for the claimant; the tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 13(4) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- just and equitable extension
- reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Adsa Stores Ltd v Kauser
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Westward Circuits Ltd v Read
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
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.