Case 1600199/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Georghe Medvidi v Goshen Cleaning Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600199/2022
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Grubb Representation
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Georghe Medvidi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 20 September 2022, before Employment Judge C Grubb, the tribunal considered Georghe Medvidi's claims against Goshen Cleaning Services. The written judgment records that the claimant was represented in person and the respondent was represented by its director, Mr Michael Isiah, with a Russian interpreter present.
The tribunal dismissed the claims because they had been presented outside the statutory time limits and were not thereafter presented within a reasonable time. The text supplied does not set out the individual substantive heads of claim, and it records no findings on the merits of any underlying allegation.
No monetary award was made. The judgment was sent to the parties on 26 September 2022, and the note confirms that reasons had been given orally at the hearing so written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims because they were presented outside the statutory time limits and were not thereafter presented within a reasonable time. The individual substantive heads of claim are not identified in the text supplied. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.