Case 2201677/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Z Tanko Sarkany v Flight Club Darts Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2201677/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs H Craik, Mr S Godecharle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Z Tanko Sarkany
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing before Employment Judge Baty, with Mrs H Craik and Mr S Godecharle, the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages complaint succeeded by consent. The respondent was ordered to pay £574.44, subject to any tax or national insurance contributions which may be payable.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s pregnancy/maternity discrimination and pregnancy/maternity-related harassment complaints at paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the agreed list of issues were outside its jurisdiction because they were out of time and it would not have been just and equitable to extend time. Those complaints were struck out, and the tribunal also said they would have been struck out for want of jurisdiction on the time point.
The complaints at paragraph 2.6.3 were also out of time, were not saved by a just and equitable extension, and were struck out. The tribunal stated that if it had had jurisdiction, those complaints would have failed. The remaining pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaint at paragraph 2.6.4 and the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal complaint both failed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent. The award was made subject to any tax or national insurance contributions which may be payable. | Upheld | — | £574 |
| Harassment | The pregnancy/maternity-related harassment complaints at paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 were out of time, the tribunal would not have extended time as just and equitable, and the complaints were struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaints at paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 were struck out as out of time and for want of jurisdiction; paragraph 2.6.3 was also out of time and struck out, and would have failed even if jurisdiction had existed. The remaining complaint at paragraph 2.6.4 failed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal complaint failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £574
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.