Case 3202454/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bosko Pejic v Storm Global Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202454/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Hindmarch Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Bosko Pejic
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a two-day Public Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge K Hindmarch sitting alone at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 12 and 13 February 2025, with a reserved decision dated 29 April 2025. The Claimant, an airline captain, brought three sets of claims against Storm Global Ltd and Ryanair DAC arising out of his work and dismissal in September 2023. The Respondents applied to strike out on grounds of territorial and international jurisdiction, time limits, and (in respect of the First Respondent) no reasonable prospects of success.
The Tribunal concluded it did not have territorial or international jurisdiction to hear the claims. In the alternative, it held that the whistleblowing claim (3200263/24) and the Ryanair claim (3200411/24) were presented out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present them in time, so those claims were dismissed. The claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and under the Agency Worker Regulations as against the First Respondent were struck out on the basis they had no reasonable prospects of success, the Tribunal noting that the Claimant's amended pleadings asserted Ryanair was his employer and that he could not be both an employee and an agency worker in respect of the same work.
The Claimant's application for a preparation time order was refused; the Tribunal found the Respondents' jurisdictional contentions were not without reasonable prospects, that any delay in producing a list of issues was not disruptive, and that the use of the word "gross" rather than "severe" misconduct did not amount to unreasonable conduct.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as against the First Respondent (Storm Global Ltd) on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success, given the Claimant's amended pleadings asserted he was employed by the Second Respondent. The Tribunal also found it lacked territorial and international jurisdiction over the claims overall. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Struck out as against the First Respondent on the same basis as the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Struck out as against the First Respondent; the Tribunal reasoned the Claimant could not simultaneously be an employee and an agency worker in respect of the same work. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim number 3200263/24 dismissed as presented out of time; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time. The Tribunal also held it had no territorial or international jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Within the Ryanair claim 3200411/24 dismissed as out of time and on jurisdiction grounds. PDF text truncated; classification reflects gov.uk listing categories and the Tribunal's overall jurisdictional dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday and sick pay aspects of the Storm Claim were not separately adjudicated on merits; the Tribunal found no jurisdiction to hear the claims. PDF text truncated. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15C Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
- Rule 10(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 74 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.