Case 2200605/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Falanka v London School of Economics — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200605/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr D Kendall, Mr S Godecharle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Falanka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that the case was heard at London Central on 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 February 2024 before Employment Judge Emery sitting with Mr D Kendall and Mr S Godecharle. It states that the claimant, Mr B Falanka, brought claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, detriment related to trade union membership, and notice pay.
The judgment records the outcome only: all claims failed and were dismissed. No monetary award was made. The written record also states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment form.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Recorded in the judgment as automatic unfair dismissal; the written record does not specify the statutory basis in this extract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Recorded as detriment related to trade union membership. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.