Case 1401305/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Smykowski (Consultant) v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401305/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Bodmin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Smykowski (Consultant)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 May 2025 at Bodmin, Employment Judge Smail recorded a consent judgment after the parties, represented by Mr Smykowski for the claimant and Mr H. Davis for the respondents, had agreed terms between themselves. The judgment does not make findings on the substantive merits of the claims.
The tribunal ordered that the claim be stayed for 28 days pending receipt from ACAS of confirmation of settlement. It further recorded that, upon receipt of that confirmation, the claim would be dismissed upon withdrawal without further order.
No monetary award was recorded in the judgment, and no remedy figures were set out. The case was therefore resolved by agreement rather than by a merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Consent judgment: the parties had agreed terms between themselves; the claim was stayed for 28 days pending ACAS confirmation of settlement. | Settled | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Consent judgment: the parties had agreed terms between themselves; the claim was stayed for 28 days pending ACAS confirmation of settlement. | Settled | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Consent judgment: the parties had agreed terms between themselves; the claim was stayed for 28 days pending ACAS confirmation of settlement. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Consent judgment: the parties had agreed terms between themselves; the claim was stayed for 28 days pending ACAS confirmation of settlement. | Settled | — | — |
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.