Case 2301856/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Radoslaw Ryngwelski v Greenehue Ltd (in liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301856/2020
- Decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Radoslaw Ryngwelski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ryngwelski was employed by Greenehue Ltd and said that it had not paid him for 25 weeks. He had already brought a County Court claim, number 108MC429 at Roehampton, and obtained judgment for £9,905.84 including the court fee, together with £895.63 interest. He said that after that judgment the company’s assets were sold to a related company and Greenehue Ltd entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 3 March 2020. On 27 May 2021 AABRS Ltd informed the tribunal that the Redundancy Payments Office had assessed and admitted his claim.
At the Employment Tribunal hearing on 9 June 2021, Employment Judge Housego explained that the same debt could not be pursued in two different courts. The judge also explained that Employment Tribunal judgments are enforced through the County Court, so the claimant would end up in the same place. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim without determining the underlying wage or debt entitlement.
The judge further explained that Mr Ryngwelski had to prove his debt in the liquidation. The reasons state that payment would depend on what the liquidator was able to realise and how the available money was distributed among creditors after the liquidator’s own costs and any priority debts. The judgment records no tribunal award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the claim because Mr Ryngwelski had already obtained a County Court judgment for the same debt. The judgment does not identify a separate substantive tribunal cause of action or make any merits finding on the underlying entitlement. | 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.