Case 4105998/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Lew-Gorzynska v David Cargill House — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105998/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Lew-Gorzynska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe second claimant, Mr I Lew-Gorzynski, was employed by the respondent from around 2011 and was dismissed in April 2022. In this case he lodged an ET1 on 12 November 2022 and later provided further particulars in February 2023. The ET1 referred to race discrimination, and the further particulars added allegations of protected disclosure detriment, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. The respondent’s case was that all of the second claimant’s claims were presented out of time.
On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and rejected the submission that the letter from Mr Fyfe dated 15 August 2022 was the last act in a continuing course of post-employment discrimination. It found that the letter related to the first claimant’s complaint about her own treatment and not to the second claimant’s employment relationship, so it did not amount to discrimination against him and could not found a continuing act under section 123(3) or section 108 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the discrimination claim was lodged outside the three-month limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, taking into account the length and reasons for the delay, the claimant’s awareness of the time limit, the limited detail pleaded, and the prejudice to the respondent.
The tribunal then considered the other claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Scotland extension order. It held that any protected disclosure detriment, unlawful deduction and breach of contract claims were also out of time, because the latest possible time for each was the termination of employment in April 2022. Applying the reasonable practicability approach, the tribunal noted that the claimant had already lodged an unfair dismissal claim within time and gave no persuasive reason for not bringing these claims within the three-month limit. All claims brought by the second claimant were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction, while the first claimant’s case continued separately.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as time barred; the tribunal rejected the post-employment and continuing-act argument based on the 15 August 2022 letter. The judgment records dismissal on 18 April 2022 at para 19 and later refers to 19 April 2022 in the limitation calculation at para 73. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claim was added in the February 2023 further particulars and was held out of time under the ERA 1996 limitation rules. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deductions claim was added in the February 2023 further particulars and was held out of time under section 13 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was added in the February 2023 further particulars and was held out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction Scotland) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 108 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks continuing act test
- Butterworth v Police and Crime Commissioners Office for Greater Manchester
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble factors
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- section 48 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction Scotland) Order 1994
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy reasonable practicability
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.