Case 1403630/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sobiech v Lyons Seafood Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403630/2022
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Tribunal
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Earwaker, Goddard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sobiech
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton, Employment Judge Scott sitting with Tribunal Members Earwaker and Goddard recorded an oral judgment on 11 April 2025, with the written record sent to the parties on 30 April 2025. The tribunal found that Mr Sobiech's constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the harassment claim succeeded in part, identifying allegations 3.2.3 to 3.2.6 and 3.2.8 as harassment, and it upheld the victimisation claim. The direct discrimination claim was held not well-founded and dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons or any separate monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The claim succeeded in part; the tribunal found harassment in relation to allegations 3.2.3 to 3.2.6 and 3.2.8. The protected characteristic is inferred from the case listing because the short extract does not identify it explicitly. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal recorded the claim as direct discrimination and found it not well-founded. The protected characteristic is inferred from the case listing because the short extract does not identify it explicitly. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
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.