Case 2201559/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For v Ms Alice Paley, Company Secretary and In-House Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201559/2021
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Paul Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a claim by Mr Vladimir Ozun for damages for breach of contract against ThoughtRiver Limited. Mr Ozun said he had signed a contract to start work in the UK on 10 February 2021, after leaving his job and home in Austria, and that the respondent had agreed to pay his travel and hotel expenses. The tribunal recorded that the respondent was a London-based company developing and marketing legal software, and that the claimant had applied on 19 December 2020 for three advertised roles, all of which were rejected.
On the evidence before it, the tribunal found no basis for concluding that the respondent had any contractual relationship with the claimant. It referred to the short bundle produced by the claimant, the respondent's comments on documents it had seen, and the claimant's oral evidence. The tribunal noted inconsistencies in the claimant's account, including references in his ET1 and documents to a different company name, and it accepted the respondent's point that the documents did not support the existence of a contract with ThoughtRiver Limited. The claim for damages for breach of contract was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.