Case 3331008/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person, assisted by Michal Derkowski, Partner For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331008/2018
- Decision date
- 30 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person, assisted by Michal Derkowski, Partner For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Bury St Edmunds on 30 July 2019 before Employment Judge Laidler. The judgment records that the claimant, Miss Maria Bojdol, appeared in person and was assisted by Michal Derkowski, Partner, and that Tesco Stores Limited was represented by counsel.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claims were presented out of time. It held that it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time and that, because of that failure, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the claims.
On that basis, all claims were dismissed. The written record does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying merits of the claims or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim was received out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, and that it had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held the claim was received out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, and that it had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.