Case 1804295/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Cichon v Maritime Transport Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804295/2019
- Decision date
- 25 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Cichon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rostant sat alone at Sheffield on 25 September 2019. The tribunal dealt with three pleaded claims brought by Mr B Cichon against Maritime Transport Ltd: unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and race discrimination.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service to pursue that claim. The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was struck out because it had been presented late and the tribunal found there were no grounds to extend time. The race discrimination claim was also struck out for lateness, again with no grounds found for extending time.
Following those strike-outs, the judgment states that all claims were dismissed. No remedy award was made or recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service to pursue it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the unauthorised deduction from wages claim because it was presented late and there were no grounds for extending time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the race discrimination claim because it was presented late and there were no grounds for extending time. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.