Case 1600068/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Angelika Niemanski v Nethouseprices Limited — 2019

Case reference: 1600068/2019
Decision date: 27 April 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Angelika Niemanski

Respondent

Nethouseprices Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Ms Angelika Niemanski, brought a complaint under section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging that Nethouseprices Limited failed to provide a written statement of the reasons for her dismissal. Regional Employment Judge B J Clarke heard the matter at Cardiff on 4 April 2019.

The judgment records that the complaint was dismissed upon its withdrawal. The reason given was the claimant's acceptance that she did not have the two years' service required to qualify for the right to a written statement of reasons for dismissal under section 92.

The judgment states that this disposal did not affect the claimant's other complaints, which were to be dealt with in a separate case management order.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint under section 92 ERA 1996 that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of the reasons for dismissal. The judgment records that it was dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant accepted she did not have the two years' service needed to qualify for that right.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.