Case 2302986/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sindelarova v Jazz Company (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302986/2019
- Decision date
- 26 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sindelarova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is procedural and does not record any substantive merits decision on the underlying employment claims. It amends the name of the respondent from Jazzco Group (UK) Limited to Jazz Company (UK) Limited.
The tribunal dismissed the application for reconsideration of the acceptance of the Claim Form as against Jazzco Group (UK) Limited. It also allowed the application for reconsideration of the acceptance of the Claim Form as against Hanif Rajwani as Second Respondent, and the claim against him was therefore dismissed. No remedy figures are recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the application for reconsideration of the acceptance of the Claim Form as against Jazzco Group (UK) Limited. The judgment also records that the respondent's name was amended to Jazz Company (UK) Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal allowed the application for reconsideration of the acceptance of the Claim Form as against Hanif Rajwani as Second Respondent and recorded that the claim against him was therefore dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.