Case 1602172/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Nowosad v Ticketlord Limited t/a Flowte — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602172/2020
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Nowosad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 9 August 2021 at Cardiff (CVP), Employment Judge R Evans recorded that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine Mr I Nowosad's constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages claims because the claimant habitually carried out his work from within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The judgment also recorded jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim, which the parties had agreed was subject to the laws of the Republic of Ireland.
The written record does not set out any merits findings, liability decision, or monetary award. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The written judgment records only that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim because he habitually carried out his work from within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. No merits outcome is stated in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment records only that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim because he habitually carried out his work from within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. No merits outcome is stated in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that it had jurisdiction to determine the breach of contract claim, which the parties had agreed was subject to the laws of the Republic of Ireland. No merits outcome is stated in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
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.