Case 3311641/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Costica Radu v Next Distribution Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311641/2021
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Costica Radu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal under s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 and underpayment or non-payment of wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing was conducted remotely by video before Employment Judge Tobin.
The tribunal found that both complaints had been presented outside the applicable statutory time limits. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present each claim within the appropriate time limit.
As a result, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints brought on 11 June 2021, and the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim under s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented outside the s111 ERA 1996 time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it within the appropriate time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the underpayment or non-payment of wages claim as brought pursuant to s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and found it was presented outside the s23 ERA 1996 time limit, where it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.