Case 3302985/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Kozik (representative) and in person For the first v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 3302985/2020
Decision date: 23 March 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Daniels Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Kozik (representative) and in person For the first

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, a Polish HGV driver employed from 2007, alleged direct race/nationality discrimination based on incidents said to occur between 2014 and 2018, and victimisation arising from a grievance dated 1 May 2019 and later disciplinary action. The tribunal first dealt with whether he had been dismissed. It found that, after a purported dismissal on 26 September 2019, the claimant successfully appealed to the third respondent, was reinstated on 28 October 2019 with immediate effect and full continuity, and was treated as having continuous employment. Applying G4S v Anstey, the tribunal held that the original dismissal was expunged and that it had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal next considered the direct discrimination claims. It held that the last alleged discriminatory act was at the end of 2018 and that the claims were brought more than 12 months later. Applying section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable extension cases cited in the judgment, it found there was no continuing act, no good reason for the delay, and that the respondent would suffer prejudice in having to meet allegations going back to 2014. Those direct race discrimination claims were therefore dismissed.

By contrast, the tribunal allowed the victimisation claims to proceed. It accepted that the claimant had been genuinely unwell between September 2019 and early January 2020, that the ongoing appeal and reinstatement process created uncertainty as to dismissal and limitation, and that he had been accidentally told by someone at the third respondent that he had six months to bring a claim. The tribunal also found that he moved reasonably promptly once he consulted a lawyer in February 2020 and did not accept that the respondents would suffer undue prejudice. It therefore extended time on a just and equitable basis for the victimisation allegations said to arise from the disciplinary allegations in July 2019 and the dismissal decision on 26 September 2019; the merits of those claims were not determined in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed. His appeal succeeded, he was reinstated by the third respondent with full continuity of service, and the original dismissal was treated as expunged under the TUPE-related appeal arrangements, so there was no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The pleaded direct race/nationality discrimination allegations from 2014 to 2018 were found to be substantially out of time. The tribunal found no continuing act and no just and equitable basis to extend time, so these claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the alleged victimisation complaints said to arise from April/May 2019 to 26 September 2019. It relied on the claimant's illness in late 2019, the ongoing appeal and reinstatement process, accidental misinformation that he had six months to claim, and the absence of retained advice. The merits were not determined in this judgment, only that the claims may proceed.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.