Case 1308941/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr G Kosienkowski (2) Mrs I Kosienkowska (3) Mr S Hill v Club L London — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308941/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr G Kosienkowski (2) Mrs I Kosienkowska (3) Mr S Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 3 September 2021 Employment Judge Perry recorded that the first and second claimants' complaints of race discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not contain substantive findings on the merits of those complaints, and it states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision.
The tribunal struck out the three claimants' complaints that they were entitled to redundancy payments. It referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that each claimant had been employed for less than two years, so they were not entitled, without more, to bring redundancy payment complaints. The reasons section records that the claimants had not given an acceptable reason why the redundancy-payment complaints should not be struck out, while they had given an acceptable reason for their unfair dismissal complaints not being struck out, namely that they said they were dismissed for asserting a statutory right.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | First and second claimants only. The judgment states these complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First and second claimants only. The judgment states these complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | All three claimants. The tribunal held that each claimant had less than two years' service, so they were not entitled to bring redundancy payment complaints and had not given an acceptable reason why those complaints should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.