Case 4104149/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Kuczora v Gather and Gather Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104149/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Kuczora
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Daniel Kuczora, brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by Gather & Gather Limited. The tribunal found that his effective date of termination was 27 February 2020, so the three-month primary limitation period expired on 26 May 2020. The ET1 was not presented until 2 August 2020. Because early conciliation was not commenced by 26 May 2020, there was no extension available under the Early Conciliation Regulations.
The tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the not reasonably practicable test, referring to Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Dedman v British Building Engineering Appliances Ltd, Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, and Hammond v Haigh Castle & Co Ltd. It accepted that the claimant had been represented by a Unite union official at his disciplinary and appeal meetings, and held that any failure by that skilled adviser did not make it not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time. The tribunal also found that the claimant knew by 4 June 2020 that he was out of time but then waited before contacting ACAS and later before submitting the ET1.
The tribunal held that the claimant's non-receipt of the appeal outcome letter did not matter because time ran from the effective date of termination, not the appeal result. It further held that, even if it had been wrong on the first stage, the claim was not brought within a reasonable time thereafter. The tribunal therefore decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented out of time and the claimant did not satisfy the section 111(2) ERA 1996 not reasonably practicable test. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 111 ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Dedman v British Building Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Hammond v Haigh Castle & Co Ltd
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.