Case 3307411/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kozik, Legal Consultant For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307411/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch QC
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Kozik, Legal Consultant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Witold Suchanski worked for Montague's Laundries Ltd as a delivery driver from 27 September 2018 until 7 February 2020. At a remote preliminary hearing on 20 January 2021, Employment Judge Bloch QC considered complaints of constructive unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA, unlawful deduction of wages for holiday pay, and breach of contract for notice pay. The tribunal held that all complaints had been presented out of time and struck them out for lack of jurisdiction.
For the holiday pay and notice pay complaints, the tribunal applied the statutory time-limit provisions and referred to Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd. It accepted that the claimant had contacted Polish lawyers in March and April 2020, knew he had some smaller claims, but did not know of the constructive dismissal claim until a Skype consultation with KL Law Ltd on 29 June 2020. The claimant relied on lack of money, unfamiliarity with English law, poor English, and a hospital admission from 11 to 13 July 2020 for shortness of breath, but the tribunal did not find those matters enough to excuse the delay in bringing the holiday pay and notice pay claims.
On the constructive unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal accepted that the claimant only learned of the potential claim at the 29 June 2020 consultation, but held that it was not then presented within a reasonable period. The tribunal said that the claimant and his adviser needed to act with expedition once the obstacle of ignorance had been removed, and that the short particulars could have been issued promptly and perfected later if necessary. The extracted text contains apparent date slips in paragraph 33, but the overall reasoning is that the delay between late June 2020 and the ET1 presented on 27 July 2020 was not reasonable.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA, said to arise from the alleged refusal to pay statutory holiday pay; struck out as out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Statutory unlawful deduction of wages claim for holiday pay; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Contractual notice pay claim under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales)) Order 1994; struck out as out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.111(2) ERA 1996 not reasonably practicable test
- reasonable period under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales)) Order 1994
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 520
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.