Case 3300227/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs U Struzik v WHsmith Retail Holdings Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300227/2020
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reindorf
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs U Struzik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by CVP on 17 June 2021 before Employment Judge Reindorf sitting alone. The claimant was represented in person and the respondent was represented by Mr P Manson, solicitor. The Tribunal noted that no objection had been made to the remote format and that a face to face hearing was not required because all issues could be determined remotely.
The Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were not presented within the relevant time limits. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented in time, and on that basis the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The respondent's application for costs arising from the postponement of the final hearing on 10 February 2021 was refused. The judgment states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant time limits and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented out of time; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant time limits and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the Tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.