Case 2303160/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Dabrowska, Consultant For the v Ms Y Montaz, Senior Litigation Consultant — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303160/2018
- Decision date
- 2 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington
- Panel members
- Ms R Bailey, Ms P Barratt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Dabrowska, Consultant For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe extracted judgment is a short written record of an interlocutory decision in case 2303160/2018. Sitting at London South on 21 April 2021, Employment Judge Harrington, with Ms R Bailey and Ms P Barratt, heard an application by the claimant, Ms M Klepacka, to amend her claim. The respondent was Otium Services and Factilities Limited, represented by Ms Y Montaz, Senior Litigation Consultant.
The tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend her claim, as particularised in paragraph 2 of the Case Management Summary dated 2 May 2021. No substantive findings on liability, dismissal, discrimination, wages, or remedy are recorded in the extracted text.
The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. On the extracted material, this decision was procedural only and does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The only decision recorded in the extracted text is that the claimant's application to amend her claim, as particularised in paragraph 2 of the Case Management Summary dated 2 May 2021, was allowed. The judgment text does not record any substantive merits findings on the underlying employment claims. | 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.