Case 3310865/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Victor Mendes, deceased v Faccenda Foods Ltd t/a Avara Foods — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310865/2020
- Decision date
- 4 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Victor Mendes, deceased
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Victor Mendes worked for the respondent from 16 July 2019 as a Twilight Intake Operative and was dismissed on 19 March 2020 for medical incapacity after being signed off with Pemphigus Vulgaris and related ulcers. The tribunal noted that the respondent had obtained occupational health advice, considered the risk of further ulcers and infection in poultry work, and concluded there was no clear return-to-work date or suitable alternative role.
At the preliminary hearing the respondent accepted that Mr Mendes was disabled at the relevant time. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the unpaid wages claim under s.111(2) ERA 1996 because the ET1 was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to issue it sooner once ACAS had issued the certificate. The breach of contract complaint was also held to be outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
For the three Equality Act claims under s.13, s.15 and s.20, the tribunal extended time as just and equitable under s.123 Equality Act 2010, taking into account the claimant's death, the lay representative's difficulties in obtaining instructions, the India lockdown and internet problems, and the 14-day delay. It refused strike-out under rule 37, but found the claims had little reasonable prospect of success under rule 39 and ordered deposits of £1 on each claim, after considering that Ms Gonsalves had income of about £200 per month and making no other orders.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction under s.111(2) ERA 1996 because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to issue it promptly once ACAS had issued the certificate. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint, proceeding on the basis that any extension of time failed on the same timeliness reasoning. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out the s.13 claim but ordered a £1 deposit because it considered the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. It noted that no comparator was nominated. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out the s.15 claim but ordered a £1 deposit because it considered the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The judge said it was unclear, at this stage, how s.15 was being advanced. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out the s.20 claim but ordered a £1 deposit because it considered the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The adjustment said to be sought was additional time to recover before returning to work. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank University
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.