Case 2211437/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2211437/2022
Decision date: 10 July 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Webster
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Mr T Cook, Ms H Craik

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

In the case of Mr Adam Marzec v Knightsbridge Court Management Company Limited, heard at London Central Employment Tribunal from 1 July 2025 to 8 July 2025, Employment Judge Webster sat with Mr T Cook and Ms H Craik. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Boyd of counsel.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It did not uphold the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim, and it did not uphold the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim.

The record states that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record of decision. No monetary award is set out in the written extract provided.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal upheld the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The written record gives only the outcome; it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not set out here.	Upheld	—	—
Whistleblowing	The claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim was not upheld. The written record gives only the outcome; it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not set out here.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim was not upheld. The written record gives only the outcome; it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not set out here.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.