Case 1402696/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Holewinska v FPM Foods Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402696/2021
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss P Holewinska
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 22 October 2021, the tribunal gave Miss Holewinska an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints against Daniel Sulimierski should not be struck out. Both the claimant and the respondent made representations on the issue.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay and notice pay claims were claims which should be brought against the employer. As no valid grounds were provided for maintaining those claims against the second respondent, the complaints against Daniel Sulimierski were struck out.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim stayed listed for hearing on 6 to 7 July 2022. No remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint against the second respondent, Daniel Sulimierski; the tribunal held this was a claim that should be brought against the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy pay complaint against the second respondent; the tribunal held this was a claim that should be brought against the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint against the second respondent; the tribunal treated it as a claim that should be brought against the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
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.