Case 1304544/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mona Hotels Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1304544/2018
- Decision date
- 21 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 24 July 2019, Employment Judge Self refused the respondent's application for reconsideration under Rule 70. The judgment sent to the parties on 21 March 2019, which had been made in favour of Mr Fryczynski and Mr Ibanez at the hearing on 20 March 2019, was confirmed and was to continue to have full force and effect.
Mr Hotico did not attend the 24 July 2019 hearing, despite having been granted a postponement on 20 March 2019, and his claims were dismissed. The extracted text does not identify the underlying cause or causes of action for the claimants, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal confirmed the 20 March 2019 judgment in favour of Mr Fryczynski and Mr Ibanez. The extracted text does not state the underlying claim type or any award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mr Hotico failed to attend the 24 July 2019 hearing, having previously been granted a postponement on 20 March 2019, and his claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 70 reconsideration
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.