Case 2301698/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Tihomirov, (2) Ms K Jaroszewska v Cognithan Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301698/2021
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Tihomirov, (2) Ms K Jaroszewska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out and deposit applications in the linked cases of Mr A Tihomirov and Ms K Jaroszewska. Employment Judge Ramsden heard the matter on 25 May 2023. The claimants were in person and used an interpreter. The tribunal noted repeated non-compliance with case management orders, but treated the discrimination allegations with the caution required by the authorities on strike-out.
Claims and outcomes
17 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | 13 March 2021 incident involving Emmanuel; the strike-out and deposit applications were refused and the claim was allowed to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | Deposit order of £100; the tribunal noted the contract suggested just under 17 days accrued over less than seven months, while the claim was for 22.4 days. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deposit order of £100; the tribunal referred to a payslip dated 31 March 2021 showing £1,161 gross for January 2021 working hours. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for notice pay was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim about a deduction referred to as a deposit was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for a coronavirus supplement was struck out because it was not particularised. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- Rule 37(1)(a) ET Rules 2013
- Rule 37(1)(b) ET Rules 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) ET Rules 2013
- Rule 37(1)(e) ET Rules 2013
- Rule 39 ET Rules 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- James v Blockbuster
- Arrow Nominees v Blackledge
- Weir Valves v Armitage
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Ahir v British Airways
- Ukegheson v London Borough of Haringey
- Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Ltd
- O'Keefe v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.