Case 3313341/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Ms K Faulkner, solicitor — 2023

Case reference: 3313341/2022
Decision date: 26 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge George Appearances
Venue: Reading

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Ms K Faulkner, solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mrs D Petrova, brought a claim after ACAS conciliation about an alleged unilateral change to her working pattern from Monday to Friday to Monday to Saturday, together with difficulties in email communication with Royal Mail. In the ET1 she sought compensation for mental anguish and inconvenience, or alternatively an order that Royal Mail honour the Monday to Friday arrangement she said had been agreed, or transfer her to another depot. The tribunal recorded that her continuous employment began on 24 February 2020 and was still continuing when the claim was presented on 5 November 2022.

At the preliminary hearing on 2 May 2023, Employment Judge George held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as a breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order because the claimant remained employed when the claim was presented. The judge also considered whether the pleading could be treated as a reference under s.11 ERA 1996 concerning employment particulars, but concluded that the claim as framed was about breach of contract rather than a request for a declaration of contractual particulars. The judgment explained that the tribunal's role under s.11 is limited to deciding what the terms are, not whether they have been breached or how unclear terms should be interpreted.

No substantive liability or remedy was determined. The judge gave the claimant time to reflect and to seek advice, including because she was unrepresented and English was her second language, and directed her to write to the tribunal and the respondent by 3 July 2023 to show cause why the claim should not be struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Because of a delay in sending the reasons, that deadline was extended to seven days from the date the judgment was sent to the parties.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order because the claimant's employment was continuing when the claim was presented. The judge also considered whether the ET1 could be treated as a s.11 ERA claim, but concluded it was pleaded as a breach of contract complaint. No final merits determination or monetary award was made; the claimant was directed to show cause why the claim should not be struck out for no reasonable prospect of success.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.