Case 1800825/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Opieka Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800825/2019
- Decision date
- 23 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Cox at Hull on 23 April 2019. The Claimant was represented by a friend, and the Respondent was represented by its owner and registered manager. No lay members are listed in the judgment.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Claimant did not have sufficient continuous employment to qualify to bring that claim. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on fairness, only that the qualifying service requirement was not met.
The claim for non-payment of Statutory Sick Pay was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it. The claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant had insufficient continuous employment to qualify to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for non-payment of Statutory Sick Pay dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.