Case 1401394/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Kostiuk v Whitbread Group plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401394/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Kostiuk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim pursuant to Rules 37 and 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing, failed to comply with case management orders, and the Tribunal found that a fair hearing was not possible on the listed final hearing date and/or the claim was not actively being pursued.
The claimant had not exchanged documents, agreed a hearing bundle, or exchanged witness statements. The Tribunal recorded that he had provided no explanation for those failures and had not disclosed documents about mitigation of financial loss following dismissal, which the Tribunal considered necessary for any assessment of compensation if the claim succeeded.
The claimant emailed the respondent and Tribunal the evening before the hearing saying he had a sickness bug and could not attend. The Tribunal treated the email broadly as a possible postponement request, but noted that it did not address the outstanding case management non-compliance or propose how the case would be made ready for a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim. The text refers to the claimant seeking compensation for financial loss following dismissal but does not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies disability discrimination, but the judgment itself does not describe the discrimination allegations or determine their merits; the claim was struck out procedurally. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37 and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.