Case 3315366/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L F Petrescu v Wasabi Sushi & Bento — 2020
- Case reference
- 3315366/2020
- Decision date
- 25 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L F Petrescu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L F Petrescu was dismissed on 25 February 2020 for gross misconduct. He appealed, but the appeal was delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, was not heard until 23 October 2020, and was rejected by a decision sent on 1 December 2020. He contacted ACAS on 3 December 2020 and presented his tribunal claim on 23 December 2020. The tribunal accepted that he felt strongly that the dismissal was unfair and that it caused him financial hardship at a time when he and his wife had just had a baby.
The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 25 February 2020, not the date of the appeal outcome, so the three-month time limit expired on 25 May 2020. It found that the unfair dismissal claim was nearly seven months out of time. Applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal considered whether it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months and concluded that it had been reasonably practicable to do so. It noted that the claimant had engaged a solicitor and that, save in unusual circumstances, a claimant cannot rely on solicitor fault to excuse late presentation; it found there was no good reason why the claimant or his solicitor could not have found out the time limit and protected his position by issuing before the internal appeal was heard.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out for being out of time and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The claimant had also ticked claims for race discrimination, religious belief discrimination, unpaid wages, a redundancy payment and unpaid holiday pay, but he clarified at the hearing that unfair dismissal was the only claim he was pursuing. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims on withdrawal and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim because it was presented out of time. It held that the effective date of termination was 25 February 2020, the three-month limit expired on 25 May 2020, and it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | This claim was ticked in the claim form, but the claimant provided particulars only for unfair dismissal and later clarified that unfair dismissal was the only claim he was making. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | This claim was ticked in the claim form, but the claimant provided particulars only for unfair dismissal and later clarified that unfair dismissal was the only claim he was making. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This claim was ticked in the claim form, but the claimant provided particulars only for unfair dismissal and later clarified that unfair dismissal was the only claim he was making. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | This claim was ticked in the claim form, but the claimant provided particulars only for unfair dismissal and later clarified that unfair dismissal was the only claim he was making. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims on withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable test
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.