Case 1801402/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Mallen v Sybarsuk Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801402/2023
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Mallen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Mallen's unfair dismissal claim against Sybarsuk Ltd was determined under Rule 21 because no response had been presented. The tribunal recorded that the claim had been lodged on 10 March 2023 and that service had been effected at both the claimant's workplace and the respondent's registered office, but both were returned undelivered.
On the material available, Employment Judge Davies was satisfied that the claim could properly be determined and found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment does not set out further factual findings on liability beyond that determination.
The tribunal did not assess compensation in the judgment itself. It stated that the amount of any compensation payable would be determined at a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment: the claim was lodged on 10 March 2023, served at the claimant's workplace and the respondent's registered office, no response was presented, and the tribunal determined the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded. Compensation was left to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.