Case 1304250/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Olkowski v Family Care Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304250/2021
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Olkowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 26 June 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr M Olkowski an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal's Order dated 8 May 2023 and because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Battisby therefore struck out the claim in the judgment dated 17 October 2024. The reasons do not record any determination of the substantive merits of the pleaded claims or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out for failure to comply with the Tribunal's Order of 8 May 2023 and because it had not been actively pursued; the underlying claim type is not restated in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out for failure to comply with the Tribunal's Order of 8 May 2023 and because it had not been actively pursued; the underlying claim type is not restated in the reasons. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out for failure to comply with the Tribunal's Order of 8 May 2023 and because it had not been actively pursued; the underlying claim type is not restated in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out for failure to comply with the Tribunal's Order of 8 May 2023 and because it had not been actively pursued; the underlying claim type is not restated in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
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.