Case 1803840/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Krasnoselskyi v Moffat Operations Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803840/2021
- Decision date
- 7 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's redundancy payment complaint at this stage. By a letter dated 5 August 2021, it gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why that complaint should not be struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, because the claimant had already received a judgment for a redundancy payment covering the same period with a different employer.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the redundancy payment complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining unfair dismissal claim was still listed for hearing on 25 November 2021, but was made subject to a strike out warning. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint after the claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing in response to the tribunal's letter of 5 August 2021. The reason given was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had already received a judgment for a redundancy payment covering the same period with a different employer. | 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.