Case 6017669/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Bariczay v Cardiff and Vale College and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017669/2024
- Decision date
- 14 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr W Bariczay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W Bariczay's claim against Cardiff and Vale College and the individual respondents was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit, and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. The written decision records that the claim was dismissed against all respondents.
The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend the proceedings to add a complaint of victimisation relating to the referral of the claimant to EWC. The proceedings were therefore at an end. The judgment record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The written record does not separate the underlying pleaded heads in this disposal paragraph. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The application to amend to add a complaint of victimisation relating to referral to EWC was refused, so that complaint was not admitted. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.