Case 1603078/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Jackowiak v Vue Entertainment Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1603078/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Jackowiak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the Claimant's applications to amend his existing claim. The Tribunal granted permission to add a complaint that his dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination, and refused permission to add a complaint that his dismissal was an act of direct sex discrimination.
The Tribunal considered the balance of injustice and hardship. It noted that race discrimination had been raised in the Claim Form and preliminary hearing material, and that adding discriminatory dismissal on grounds of race would impose a relatively limited burden on the Respondent. By contrast, the proposed sex discrimination amendment had not been canvassed earlier, was substantially out of time, and would require broader investigation and evidence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment grants an application to amend the claim to add a complaint that dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination; it does not determine the merits of that complaint. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refuses an application to amend the claim to add a complaint that dismissal was an act of direct sex discrimination; it does not determine the merits of such a complaint. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- balance of injustice and hardship
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Limited
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Woodhouse v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust
- Employment Tribunals (England & Wales) Presidential Guidance on General Case Management (2018), Guidance Note 1
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.