Case 2218715/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Voskou v Voscap Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218715/2024
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Voskou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim brought by Ms E Voskou against Voscap Limited was heard at London Central on 28 August 2024 before Employment Judge Forde. The tribunal recorded that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, but on a jurisdictional basis rather than on the merits. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that complaint because the claimant had not completed the length of service required.
The complaint of breach of contract and/or wrongful dismissal was also found not well-founded and dismissed. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal; dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the claimant had not completed the required length of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract and/or wrongful dismissal; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Included within the complaint of breach of contract and/or wrongful dismissal; dismissed as not well-founded. | 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.