Case 1401296/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Vasileios Briolas v St Cloud Care Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401296/2021
- Decision date
- 18 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Vasileios Briolas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Vasileios Briolas, brought proceedings against St Cloud Care Limited. At the hearing on 5 October 2021, Employment Judge Fowell recorded that the claimant had ticked the discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment box on the claim form in error. That complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also held that the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service to bring a complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal or a claim for a redundancy payment. Those complaints were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
The judgment records that the remaining complaints were to proceed to a hearing as ordered, but it does not decide those claims in this document.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The claimant ticked the discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment box on the claim form in error; the tribunal recorded that this complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Gender reassignment | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service for a redundancy payment claim, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | 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.