Case 4103157/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103157/2023 Held at Aberdeen on August 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Piotr Majchrzyk v Nerida Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103157/2023
- Decision date
- 6 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103157/2023 Held at Aberdeen on August 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Piotr Majchrzyk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Piotr Majchrzyk gave evidence through a Polish interpreter and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal accepted his evidence as credible and reliable. On limitation, despite the P45 showing a later leaving date, the tribunal found the effective date of termination was 26 January 2023 and held it had jurisdiction because it had not been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim within three months: he was Polish, did not speak English, did not know of the tribunal route or time limit, and a friend completed the claim online.
On the substantive money claims, the tribunal found the claimant had been employed from 16 August 2022 to 26 January 2023 and dismissed summarily without notice. It calculated average monthly pay at £4,807, assessed wages due for the relevant January period at £4,032, and after a payment of £752 found an unlawful deduction from wages of £3,280 under s.23 ERA 1996. It also found he had taken no annual leave and was entitled on termination to payment in lieu of 117.90 hours accrued leave at £22 per hour, totalling £2,593.80 under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice because of his length of service, so the summary dismissal was a breach of contract and damages were assessed at £818 net pay. It further found that he had not been given a written statement of particulars of employment contrary to s.1 ERA 1996 and, because the successful claims fell within Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002, awarded the statutory minimum of two weeks' pay, calculated at £643 per week and therefore £1,286. The judgment noted that the respondent was in liquidation and directed the claimant to contact the Insolvency Service in relation to payment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.23 ERA 1996. The tribunal found a shortfall of £3,280 after a March payment of £752 against January wages; the judgment text refers to January 2024 in this section, although elsewhere it finds termination on 26 January 2023. | Upheld | — | £3,280 |
| Working time regulations | Claim under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for payment in lieu of accrued annual leave. The tribunal found the claimant took no annual leave and calculated 117.90 hours at £22 per hour. | Upheld | — | £2,594 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give one week's notice on summary dismissal. The tribunal assessed this by reference to the claimant's net pay. | Upheld | — | £818 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996. The tribunal awarded the statutory minimum of two weeks' pay because the successful claims were within Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,286 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,978
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period thereafter
- s.23 ERA 1996
- regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1 ERA 1996
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
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.