Case 2303365/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. Y. Wolkowska v SG Sportscoaching Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303365/2022
- Decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. Y. Wolkowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South hearing on 13 June 2023, Employment Judge Sudra dealt with a preliminary issue in Miss Y. Wolkowska v SG Sportscoaching Ltd. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claimant’s complaints because they were out of time.
The decision disposed of the proceedings at the preliminary stage and did not reach the merits of the underlying age discrimination, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract, redundancy pay, or unlawful deduction from wages complaints. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because it was out of time; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because it was out of time; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because it was out of time; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because it was out of time; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because it was out of time; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because it was out of time; no merits finding was made. | 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.