Case 4107977/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Michal Kazimierczak v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107977/2020
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Michal Kazimierczak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed on 8 September 2020 and brought an unfair dismissal complaint. He had contacted ACAS in October or November 2020 and was aware there was a three-month less one day time limit, but his first tribunal claim on 6 December 2020 did not include an ACAS early conciliation number and was rejected. He obtained an ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate on 21 December 2020 and lodged a further claim on 22 December 2020.
The tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 7 December 2020. Because early conciliation was not started until 21 December 2020, outside the primary time limit, the time limit was not extended and the 22 December 2020 claim was 15 days late.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a credible and reliable witness and had limited knowledge of his legal rights, but found that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented a valid claim in time. It noted that he had access to ACAS advice, the ACAS website, and the information on the claim form about early conciliation. The tribunal also stated that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, the additional 15-day delay was not reasonable. It dismissed the reconsideration application concerning the rejected 6 December 2020 claim and confirmed the rejection decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim presented on 22 December 2020 was out of time, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. The merits of the dismissal were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.97(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances [1973] IRLR 379
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton [1991] ICR 488
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.