Case 2300892/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Marius Zubrzycki v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300892/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Marius Zubrzycki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing concerned the claimant's application to set aside the striking out of his disability discrimination claim following an Unless Order made on 25 April 2022. The claimant's other claims remained listed for a final hearing in September 2023 and were not determined in this judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had sent material to the tribunal by recorded delivery in November 2021, but the contents were not placed on the file. It also found that emails sent by the claimant in March 2022, with documents relating to the disability discrimination claim attached, had been received by the tribunal but not sent to the respondent and had not been before the judges who subsequently dealt with the case.
Taking into account rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, the overriding objective, the claimant's status as a litigant in person, and that English was not his first language, the tribunal concluded that it was in the interests of justice to set aside the Unless Order. The disability discrimination claim was therefore permitted to continue to a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment did not decide the merits of the disability discrimination claim. It set aside an Unless Order relating to that claim, so the claim would continue to a full hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- overriding objective
- interests of justice
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.