I Mocreac v Buildstop Ltd: 6016358/2024 and 6018262/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6016358/2024, 6018262/2024
Between
Igor MocreacClaimantBuildstop LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge SearleyNot represented for claimantDate 1 July 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]Claims 6016358/2024 and 6018262/2024 are consolidated pursuant to Rule 30 and Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[2]The claims presented on 25 October 2024 and on 11 November were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claims are therefore dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The parties in this case are the claimant, Mr Igor Mocreac, and the respondent, Buildstop Limited. The claimant brings claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract against the respondent.[2]The preliminary issue for determination is whether the claims in relation to unfair dismissal and breach of contract have been brought in accordance with the relevant time limits in the Employment Rights Act 1996.[3]There were two ET1s in this case. The first (case number: 6016358/2024) was dated 25 October 2024 and the second (case number: 6018262/2024) was dated 11 November 2024. Both of the ET1s relied on the same ACAS certificate (R234260/24/37) and appeared to set out the same claims arising out of the same facts. Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 2[4]Accordingly, at the start of the hearing I consolidated the claims, in accordance with rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Consolidating the claims was in accordance with the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly. There was no unfairness in consolidating the claims given the claims in the second ET1 were the same as those in the first ET1, and consolidating the claims would save expense and avoid delay.[5]The matter was heard before me on 1 July 2025. I heard evidence from the claimant, who was assisted by an interpreter. The claimant’s first language is not English; it is Romanian. During the proceedings he was able to understand and communicate in English but relied on an authorised interpreter (Ms Prisacariu), whenever he felt it was necessary to do so, to ensure his comprehension and enable his full participation.[6]I heard submissions from both parties prior to reaching my decision.
Issues
[7]The preliminary issue for determination is whether the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were made within the time limits in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order SI 1994 respectively.[8]In particular, I must decide:a. Whether the claim was made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the effective date of termination.b. If not, whether it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit.c. Whether, if it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit, the claim was made within a reasonable period.[9]The effective date of termination in this case is 15 April 2024. The period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination is 14 July 2024.[10]To benefit from the provisions which allow an extension of time limits to facilitate early conciliation via ACAS, the date the claimant needed to contact ACAS was 14 July 2024. Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 3
Facts
[11]The relevant facts are as follows. I have confined myself to making findings in relation to only those facts which are relevant to my decision. Where I have had to resolve any conflict of evidence, I will explain how I have done so.[12]The claimant was employed as a logistics manager at the respondent. He was promoted to that role on 1 January 2023, having worked for the respondent since 2020. The claimant did not provide any further evidence about how long he had been in the UK. The text messages contained in the bundle showed he communicated with the respondent in both English and Romanian (Page 148-151 Bundle). He also provided a written document for the Tribunal in English (page 157-160 Bundle).[13]A meeting was held between the claimant and Mr Morgun and Ms Virbasiute of the respondent on 15 April 2024. There is a dispute between the claimant and the respondent as to what happened at that meeting, which it was not necessary for me to resolve in order to determine the issues before me.[14]It was agreed between the parties that the claimant was dismissed at that meeting on 15 April 2025, and that therefore 15 April 2025 is his effective date of termination for the purpose of determining the issues in this case.[15]On 16 April 2025, there was an exchange of messages between Mr Morgun of the respondent and the claimant. The claimant received a message from Mr Morgun on 16 April which stated: “u better think carefully about ur next steps if you don’t want me to play the card which I would rather not play” (page 151 Bundle). I accept the claimant’s evidence that he was unsure what Mr Morgun was trying to achieve with the message.[16]The claimant replied to the effect that he could not accept what was done to him and that he had always worked honestly for the respondent and had never let them down. Mr Morgun replied “it’s ur call good luck”.[17]I find, in light of the message the claimant sent to the respondent, that the claimant had formed a view by 16 April that he did not accept the way that the respondent had treated him.[18]Contrary to the claimant’s evidence, I do not find that the exchange between Mr Morgun and the claimant could properly be considered a threat to the claimant not to bring these proceedings. That is because the way Mr Morgun responded to the claimant’s message that he could not accept the way he had been treated was to tell the claimant it was up to the claimant and to wish him luck. Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 4[19]Following the claimant’s dismissal, he was without employment for a period of time. His primary concern during that period was to ensure his bills were paid and he was looking for work. He accrued an overdraft in that period. He obtained employment in July and received his first salary in that new role on 15 July 2024 but still had the overdraft and was concerned with trying to pay the overdraft off. I accept that it was a stressful period of time for the claimant and that his financial situation was the predominant concern for him.[20]The claimant took no steps during this period to research his legal rights, notwithstanding that he had formed a view by 16 April 2024 that he did not think the way the respondent had treated him was right. A friend suggested to the claimant, at some point in July 2024, that he could bring an employment tribunal claim. This was the first time the claimant became aware of the possibility he might have a claim.[21]In August, the claimant began to research on the internet how he could bring such a claim. This was the first time the claimant took steps to investigate what his legal rights were. Early conciliation through ACAS began on 22 August 2024. The process was free.[22]Early conciliation began at least three weeks later than he had been informed by his friend in July that a claim might be possible, and 5 weeks and 4 days later than the date by which the claimant needed to have approached ACAS to benefit from the extension of time provisions for early conciliation.[23]The ACAS certificate was issued on 16 September 2024. The claimant’s first ET1 (claim 6016358/2024) was received on 25 October 2024. The claimant’s second ET1 (claim 6018262/2024) was received on 11 November 2024. The claimant did not have to pay any money to bring the claims.
Relevant law
[24]S.111 of the Employment Rights Act provides, where relevant, as follows:(1) A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal against an employer by any person that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer.(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal— (a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, or (b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months. (2A) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of subsection (2)(a). Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 5[25]Section 207B provides, where relevant, as follows:(1) This section applies where this Act provides for it to apply for the purposes of a provision of this Act (a “relevant provision”).(2) In this section— (a) Day A is the day on which the complainant or applicant concerned complies with the requirement in subsection (1) of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (requirement to contact ACAS before instituting proceedings) in relation to the matter in respect of which the proceedings are brought, and (b) Day B is the day on which the complainant or applicant concerned receives or, if earlier, is treated as receiving (by virtue of regulations made under subsection (11) of that section) the certificate issued under subsection (4) of that section.(3) In working out when a time limit set by a relevant provision expires the period beginning with the day after Day A and ending with Day B is not to be counted.[26]Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (SI1994/1623) contains equivalent provisions with the same time limit in relation to an employee’s breach of contract claim. Article 8B contains a similar provision extending the time limit to allow for early conciliation.[27]Time limits are fundamental to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. If a claim is presented outside of the time limit, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it, unless the Tribunal grants an extension of time. The burden is on the claimant to prove that the presentation of the claim in time was not reasonably practicable.[28]The test the Tribunal needs to apply is not to simply look at what was possible, but to ask whether it was reasonable to expect that which was possible to have been done (Asda Stores v Kauser EAT 0165/07). The key legal principles relevant to the instant case are as follows:a. Stress, as opposed to illness or incapacity is unlikely to be sufficient reason for not presenting a claim in time (Asda Stores v Kauser EAT 0165/07).b. In assessing whether ignorance of the law is reasonable, the correct test is not whether the claimant knew of their rights but whether they ought to have known of them (Porter v Bandridge Ltd 1978 ICR 943, CA).c. A person who is considering bringing a claim is expected to appraise themselves of the time limits that apply; it is their responsibility to do so (Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton 2022 IRLR 906, EAT).[29]If a tribunal finds that it was not reasonably practicable to bring a claim in time it must consider, under the second limb of S.111(2)(b), whether the case was presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable. Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 6[30]The test of what is reasonable requires an objective consideration of the factors causing the delay and what period should reasonably be allowed in the circumstances for proceedings to be instituted, having regard to the strong public interest in claims being brought promptly and within a primary limitation period of three months (Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and anor EAT 0537/10). Analysis and conclusions[31]As I have found, the claimant did not approach ACAS by 14 July 2024 and did not file his first ET1 until 25 October 2024. Therefore, his claims were not brought within the statutory time limits.[32]The claimant relies on three reasons it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claims in time. The first is that Mr Morgun threatened him, the second is the stress he was under because of the impact of his dismissal on his financial situation, and the third is his unawareness of the time limits.[33]In relation to the suggestion that the respondent threatened the claimant, I have already found as a fact that the exchanges between the claimant and Mr Morgun did not amount to a threat. Accordingly, I do not find this to be a reason why it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time.[34]I accept the claimant was under significant stress as a result of his financial situation following his dismissal. However, this financial stress is not a sufficient reason for not presenting a claim in time. The claimant was able to look for and find work during the period when the statutory time limit was running. He had obtained a job and been paid by 15 July, and therefore his financial situation had begun to improve. There is no cost to approaching ACAS or making a claim to the Tribunal. Stress, as opposed to illness or incapacity is unlikely to be sufficient reason for not presenting a claim in time. I find that this financial stress did not mean that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claim in time.[35]In relation to his unawareness of the time limits, the claimant had formed a view by 16 April that the respondent’s treatment of him was unacceptable. Yet, he took no steps at that stage to inform himself of his legal rights. The claimant had access to the internet (he used it in August when he did start his research). There is material readily available on the internet that makes clear that any claim to the Employment Tribunal is subject to strict time-limits. I recognise that the claimant does not have English as a first language, but he has been living and working in this country since 2020 and was able to communicate effectively in English with me. The claimant ought to have known of his rights. I therefore find that his ignorance of the law was not reasonable.[36]The reason the claimant did not take the opportunity to research his legal rights is because of the stress of his financial situation. For the reasons I have explained, the stress of the claimant’s financial situation was not sufficient to avoid the effect of the statutory time limit. In any event, by August his financial situation was improving, but he still did not act with any urgency. Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 7[37]In July he was expressly informed that he might have a legal claim, however he did not take steps to appraise himself of the time limits that applied. It was his responsibility to do so. There is simply no adequate explanation for why it took the claimant, having been informed in July of the possibility of a claim, until 22 August 2024 to approach ACAS, and, having received the ACAS certificate on 16 September, why it took over a month thereafter to lodge his first claim.[38]Accordingly, I find that the claims presented on 25 October 2024 and on 11 November were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claims are therefore dismissed.[39]Having reached that view, I do not need to go on to consider whether the claims were presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable. However, as I have already stated, there is no reasonable explanation for why it took the claimant until 22 August 2024 to approach ACAS, and until 25 October to lodge his first claim. Having regard to the strong public interest in claims being brought promptly, and the factors causing the delay, I would have found that delay for such a period would not have been reasonable, given the claimant provided no reason for that delay, and by that point he was aware of his legal rights and had obtained an ACAS certificate. Approved by: Employment Judge Searley Dated: 9 October 2025 Reasons sent to the parties on: Date: 7 November 2025 Parmi Puaar For the Tribunal Office Notes Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. Judgments (apart from judgments under rule 51) and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Igor Mocreac Respondent: Buildstop Limited
Introduction
[1]At a hearing on 1 July 2025, I found that the claims brought by the claimant were not presented within the applicable time limit. I gave Judgment to that effect and provided oral reasons. A copy of that Judgment was issued to the parties on 10 July 2025. Following a request for written reasons, written reasons were produced by me on 9 October 2025 and sent to the parties on 7 November 2025.[2]On 25 July 2025, the respondent made a written application for costs. I made directions which required the respondent to provide written reasons why an oral hearing was required by 23 September 2025. I also directed the claimant to provide a response to the application, including information as to his means and whether an oral hearing was required by 30 September 2025.[3]On 21 October 2025, I decided the costs application on the papers and refused the respondent’s application. Accordingly, I made no order for costs. In my reasons I noted that neither party had complied with the directions set out at paragraph 3 above.[4]On 6 November, the matter was referred back to me by the administrative staff at the Tribunal. It transpired that the respondent had in fact complied with my order on 15 September 2025 (indicating that it was happy for the costs Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 2 application to be dealt with on the papers), but that documentation had not been added to the file at the time I considered the costs application.[5]The claimant had also complied with my direction and had written to the Tribunal on 21 September 2025, but again due to administrative pressures that had not been added to the file at the time I considered the costs application. I apologise for these delays on behalf of HMCTS. It is clear that both the claimant and the respondent had complied with my directions in the time required.[6]The claimant’s letter set out that the claimant believed that the claim had been justifiably pursued. He also gave information about his means. As I have set out, I made no order for costs, and I am therefore satisfied that this information as to the claimant’s means does not affect the decision I have made on costs.[7]The claimant’s letter also included the included further information which is the subject of the reconsideration and dealt with below. The procedural rules[8]The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 set out the rules governing reconsiderations. The pertinent rules are as follows: Principles 68. -(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.(2) A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked.(3) If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion. Application for reconsideration 69. Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of – (a) the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or (b) the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately. Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 3 Process for reconsideration 70. - (1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal.[9]The expression ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ allows the Tribunal a broad discretion to consider whether reconsideration is appropriate in the circumstances. However, the discretion must be exercised judicially which HHJ Eady QC explained means “having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the …reconsideration, but also the interest of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation”. (Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT).[10]Reconsideration of a judgment may be necessary in the interests of justice if there is new evidence that was not available to the tribunal at the time it made its judgment. In Outasight, the EAT held that the principles set out in Ladd v Marshall 1954 3 All ER 745, CA should apply. Those principles are that the claimant must show:(i) that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the original hearing,(ii) that the evidence is relevant and would probably have had an important influence on the hearing; and(iii) that the evidence is apparently credible. However, the EAT also held that the interests of justice may still allow fresh evidence to be adduced, even if those principles were not strictly met.[11]Any preliminary consideration under rule 70(1) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 3, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues and avoiding delay. The claimant’s application[12]The letter sent by the claimant on 21 September 2025 included the following paragraph: “Although the three-month deadline has passed and a decision was made not to proceed with the case, I feel it is unjust that Mr. Morgun’s threatening behaviour has not been taken into account. It seems that the expiration of the three-month period has been given more weight than addressing this issue. While it may not have been immediately clear that Mr Morgun’s previous message constituted a threat, I would like to submit another message he sent me on the day of the hearing (1st July Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 4 2025). In this message, he not only involves my family but also makes threats to their safety. Following this message, I do not feel safe to go further and submit an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision”[13]The claimant attached a screen shot of the message. It was sent via WhatsApp from the number the claimant had stored as Mr Morgun’s at 18:21 on 1 July 2025 (the day of the hearing). It is in a chain of messages all of which, bar the message at 18:21, I was shown at the hearing. Mr Morgun did not dispute sending the prior messages.[14]The message states as follows: “Now it’s our turn to make a move, and play the cards we have [finger on lips emoji] have a good drink today and try to get some sleep, as it might be the last time you have a good rest for the foreseeable future [wink emoji] Tell your wife how much you love her, and start saving money for the courts! We are coming for you [clown emoji]”
Analysis
[15]I have treated the claimant’s letter as an application for reconsideration of my decision. I am satisfied the application is in time as the written reasons for my decision were only sent to the parties on 7 November, and the claimant’s application was received prior to that date.[16]I consider it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider my judgment. This is because the claimant has brought to my attention new evidence, that wasn’t available at the hearing. It is relevant evidence as the claimant’s case was that one of the reasons he had not brought his claim in time was because he felt threatened by Mr Morgun. It is apparently credible evidence given it appears in a message chain where Mr Morgun accepts he sent the prior messages. Whilst it cannot be said that it would probably have had an important influence on the hearing (since it was sent after the hearing had concluded) given the content of the message, and that the claimant states that he does not feel safe to appeal my decision as a result, I am satisfied that dealing with the case fairly and justly means it is in the interest of justice to reconsider my decision.[17]In my written reasons, I explained that the claimant relied on three reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to bring his claim in time. The first of those was that Mr Morgun had threatened him in a message of 16 April 2025, the second was the stress he was under because of the impact of his dismissal on his financial situation, and the third was his unawareness of the time limits.[18]In relation to the suggestion that Mr Morgun had threatened the claimant I found as a fact that the exchanges of 16 April 2025 did not amount to a threat. I have carefully considered whether the new evidence provided by the claimant undermines that decision.[19]Whist the new evidence shows that Mr Morgun is capable of sending a thoroughly unpleasant message, that does not mean that, as a matter of fact, Case Numbers: 6016358/2024 & 6018262/2024 5 the messages he sent to the claimant on 16 April 2025 amounted to a threat. As stated in my written reasons, the nature of the messages could not properly be considered a threat to the claimant not to bring the proceedings.[20]The message of 1 July 2025 was sent by Mr Morgun after the hearing had finished. It cannot therefore have been operating on the claimant’s mind whilst he gave his evidence at the hearing. Nor can it be said to have been operative on his decision making at the point of bringing his claims to the Tribunal.[21]Further, the suggestion of a threat made by Mr Morgun on 16 April 2025 was one of several reasons relied on by the claimant for why he did not bring his claim in time, and it was not the claimant’s case that it was the sole reason. As set out in my written reasons, I was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities as to those other reasons either.[22]In those circumstances, there is no reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked and the application is refused.[23]However, given the content of the 1 July 2025 message, I consider it important to stress to the claimant that he has the right to appeal my decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Rule 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 sets out the time limit for lodging an appeal. Further information explaining the time limits for bringing an appeal and whether those time limits can be extended are available at the following links: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-appeal-to-the-employment-appeal-tribunal-t440/how-to-appeal-to-the-employment-appeal-tribunal--2 Practice Direction Employment Appeal Tribunal 2024[24]The claimant can show this additional evidence to the Employment Appeal Tribunal should he decide to appeal. Approved by