Case 4101812/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Express Buffet Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101812/2022
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Docherty Claimant
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent's buffet-style Indian restaurant as a kitchen steward from around August 2019 and was paid £300 per week. He had no written contract. The tribunal found that the employment ended on 13 March 2020 when the restaurant closed at the start of the first Covid lockdown, and it did not accept the claimant's case that the employment continued until July or August 2021.
On that finding, the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service needed for unfair dismissal or redundancy pay. The tribunal also held that the claims for unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay and breach of contract were considerably out of time, whichever end date was considered, and referred to section 23 ERA 1996, section 111(3) ERA 1996, section 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994.
The tribunal accepted that Covid restrictions made access to advice more difficult, but was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claims in time or that they were presented within a reasonable period thereafter. It noted that the claimant had contacted the DWP and the CAB and had pursued bankruptcy assistance in 2021, but did not first contact ACAS until January 2022 and did not present the claim until 6 April 2022. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider any of the claims and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: the tribunal found the effective date of termination was 13 March 2020 and that the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: although a redundancy payment claim has a six-month limitation period, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had the qualifying service required to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/time bar. The claim covered alleged unpaid wages, including furlough-related pay, national minimum wage issues and pension contributions. The tribunal held the claim was considerably out of time and was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier or that it was brought within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/time bar under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal held the holiday pay complaint was considerably out of time and did not satisfy the reasonably practicable test. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/time bar in respect of the notice pay claim under the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 111(3) ERA 1996
- section 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 7 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- 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.