Case 1600867/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Zakowski v Celsa Steel (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600867/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Zakowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 25 March 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr Zakowski an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that he had not complied with the case management orders of Employment Judge Moore dated 7 February 2022, specifically paragraph 4, had not complied with Employment Judge Harfield's direction of 4 March 2022, and had not actively pursued the claim.
Mr Zakowski did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge J Bromige therefore struck out the claim on 20 April 2022. The hearing listed for 11 to 13 May 2022 did not take place. No substantive findings on the merits of the race discrimination or unlawful deduction from wages issues were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole for non-compliance with case management orders, non-compliance with a later direction, and lack of active pursuit. No substantive merits finding was made. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole for non-compliance with case management orders, non-compliance with a later direction, and lack of active pursuit. No substantive merits finding was made. | 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.