Case 6019692/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019692/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningStefan Malajny brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Papa Luigi (Franchise) 1990 Limited. The preliminary issue was whether the claim had been presented in time. The Tribunal found that the parties' written agreement brought his employment to an end on 31 December 2024. Its terms stated that his employment and notice ended on that date, the subsequent payments were termination payments rather than wages extending his employment, his P45 recorded that leaving date, and he performed no contractual work after it. Applying s.97 ERA 1996, the effective date of termination was therefore 31 December 2024.
ACAS early conciliation ran from 26 to 31 March 2025, and the adjusted deadline for presenting the claim was 30 April 2025. Mr Malajny presented his ET1 on 27 May 2025. The Tribunal rejected his contention that ill health made timely presentation not reasonably practicable. It accepted that he experienced health concerns and stress, but found no evidence of an impediment lasting all or most of the relevant period. He was able to begin early conciliation, and the medical evidence did not show that preparing a claim form was not reasonably feasible.
The Tribunal concluded under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 that it had been reasonably practicable for Mr Malajny to present the claim within the primary time limit. It therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it without determining its merits. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.97 ERA 1996 (effective date of termination)
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 (not reasonably practicable test)
- London Underground v Noel [1999] IRLR 621
- Palmer v Southend Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119 CA
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1978] IRLR 499
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.