Case 6016216/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Andrulenas v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016216/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Andrulenas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was converted to a preliminary hearing to decide whether the Claimant's unfair dismissal and unpaid wages claims could proceed despite being presented outside the usual three-month time limit. The Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect on 20 July 2023, received an appeal outcome letter on 19 September 2023, contacted ACAS on 22 October 2024, and presented the claim on 24 October 2024.
The Claimant said he had been advised that he could not bring an Employment Tribunal claim until a connected criminal investigation had concluded. The Tribunal found that he had been active in seeking advice within the original time limit, had contacted several sources, and knew from the outset that he considered himself unfairly dismissed and that the claim would be brought in the Employment Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that either the Claimant misunderstood advice to wait for the appeal outcome, or he was wrongly advised that he could not bring the claim until the criminal investigation ended. Applying the reasonably practicable test, and considering Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, the Tribunal held that the Claimant's ignorance or mistaken belief about time limits was not reasonable in the circumstances. Time was not extended, and both claims were dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so time was not extended and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid wages. It was dismissed because it was presented outside the time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so time was not extended and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s23(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 53
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.