Case 1400492/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Zarebska v 1) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 2) Clean and Care Services Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400492/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton on 25 January 2024 before Employment Judge Dawson. Mrs E Zarebska appeared for herself, assisted by Mr Davey. The first respondent, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was represented by Mr Soni, a lay representative, and the second respondent, Clean and Care Services Limited (in compulsory liquidation), did not attend.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. It also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not give separate written reasons for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not give separate written reasons for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Used for the listing's rights on insolvency category; the written judgment does not specify a separate legal label or separate written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not give separate written reasons for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not give separate written reasons for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.