Case 3308988/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr V Karpavicius v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308988/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against the Secretary of State and Prime Aquariums Ltd (in liquidation) under s166 and s182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, having been the sole director and shareholder of Prime Aquariums. The Secretary of State disputed his employee status, and the s182 claim's timeliness was also in issue. Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst sat at Reading by CVP on 6 April 2023.
Applying the case of Knight, the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of Prime Aquariums at the date of redundancy, which it determined to be 16 November 2021 (the closure of the company's bank account). The s166 claim was therefore in time and well-founded. Using the agreed gross weekly pay of £240.39, the statutory redundancy payment was calculated at £1,322.15.
The s182 claim was found to be out of time. Applying the Dedman Principle, the tribunal held that the claimant was reasonable in relying on Redundancy Claims UK as advisers but that RCUK's error in presenting the ET1 over 11 weeks late was not itself reasonable. The tribunal therefore concluded it did not have jurisdiction and the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Upheld | — | £1,322 |
| Other | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,322
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.