Case 2210806/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sindelar v W A Conierge Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210806/2023
- Decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sindelar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central on 11 October 2023 before Employment Judge A M Snelson. The Claimant did not appear or have representation; the Respondent was represented by counsel, Mr T Welch. The judgment records that the Claimant had not been continuously employed by the Respondent for at least two years at the date of dismissal, and for that reason the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the Claimant had not been continuously employed by the Respondent for not less than two years at the date of dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Included within the tribunal's statement that the balance of the claims in the claim form, if and in so far as intended to stand as legal claims, were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included within the tribunal's statement that the balance of the claims in the claim form, if and in so far as intended to stand as legal claims, were not well-founded and were dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.