Case 3308988/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr V Karpavicius v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308988/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr V Karpavicius
Key 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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment under s166 ERA 1996. Claimant was sole director and shareholder; tribunal found he was an employee at termination on 16 November 2021. Calculated as [(4 x 1) + (1 x 1.5)] x £240.39 gross weekly pay. | Upheld | — | £1,322 |
| Other | Claim under s182 ERA 1996 for other payments (notice pay, holiday pay, arrears) was struck out as out of time; tribunal found the Dedman Principle applied and the claimant was bound by his adviser's late presentation. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,322
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s166 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s170 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s188 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Dedman Principle
- Knight
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.