Case 3306239/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Mr M Difelice (Solicitor). — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306239/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a preliminary issue on the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. Mr Mosakowski’s employment began on 6 March 2016 and ended on 8 March 2020, so the primary three-month limitation period expired on 7 June 2020. The tribunal found that he had already consulted a solicitor on 10 March 2020 and later obtained advice through the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, including advice that he needed to contact ACAS and issue a claim within three months. He also had an appeal against dismissal underway at the time.
The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented in time. It found that Mr Mosakowski had the ability to obtain and act on correct advice, but instead relied on incorrect advice from his brother-in-law that there was a six-month time limit and that ACAS need not be contacted. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction as out of time. Applying the same limitation reasoning, the tribunal refused leave to amend the proceedings to add breach of contract/wrongful dismissal and Working Time Regulations claims.
The age discrimination claim pleaded in the consolidated proceedings was not determined at this hearing. The respondent’s anticipated strike out/deposit order application was not pursued, and the tribunal recorded that the discrimination claim remained to be heard at the March 2022 final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend Borough Council
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited
- regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.