Case 1301306/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Novsarka v M&K Pharma Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301306/2017
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Novsarka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn claim number 1306712/2019, the tribunal found that the second and third respondents had filed no response and did not attend either the open preliminary hearing or the hearing on 10 February 2020, and no explanation for their absence was given. The tribunal therefore proceeded to determine the matter under Rule 21 on the information available and held that the claimant's victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded against those respondents.
The tribunal also recorded that, because an application to postpone or adjourn the substantive hearing had been made less than seven days before the hearing date and because of the second and third respondents' unreasonable conduct in the proceedings, including failure to comply with Rule 30A(1), a wasted costs order would be considered against them under Rule 76(1)(a) and (c). The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was joined in relation to claims for unpaid wages, notice pay and unpaid holiday pay, and claims numbered 1301306/2017 and 1304212/2018 were stayed so the claimant could apply to the Secretary of State for payment of those sums.
The judgment did not determine a monetary remedy on this occasion. It directed that the case be listed for a one-day hearing to determine the amount of remedy payable to the claimant and the issue of costs under paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Claim number 1306712/2019. The tribunal found that the second and third respondents had filed no response and did not attend the open preliminary hearing or the hearing on 10 February 2020, and that no explanation had been offered. The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 and held that the claimant's victimisation claim contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 succeeded against those respondents. | Upheld | — | — |
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.