Case 1600708/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Agnieszka Kieler-Piziorska v J K Lewis & Son Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600708/2019
- Decision date
- 19 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Agnieszka Kieler-Piziorska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beard recorded that no ET3 response form had been presented by the respondent, J K Lewis & Son Limited. The judge said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to enable a proper determination to be made and, exercising the powers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, upheld the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, breach of contract, and unpaid wages.
The judgment is expressly limited to liability. It does not set out findings on the underlying facts beyond the absence of a response from the respondent, and it directs that the matter should proceed to a remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with a time estimate of one hour. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld on liability only in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment upholds disability discrimination on liability only; no remedy figure is recorded in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Upheld on liability only. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment uses the phrase 'Unpaid Wages' and upholds the claim on liability only. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.