Case 2200109/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Zwolinski (in person) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200109/2023
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Zwolinski (in person) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in London Central on 14 July 2023 before Employment Judge Gidney, the tribunal considered two claims brought by Mr Arkadiusz Zwolinski against Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment; the document states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The claimant’s direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it was found to have no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not set out detailed findings beyond that threshold conclusion.
The claimant also pursued an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996, said to relate to raising a health and safety complaint. The tribunal found that allegation had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay a £250 deposit within 14 days if he wished to continue to advance it. That order was made after the judge took account of any information available about the claimant’s ability to comply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success, under Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996, said to arise from raising a health and safety complaint, was found to have little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a £250 deposit within 14 days as a condition of continuing to advance that allegation; there was no final merits determination. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.