Case 2303933/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. M. Gorska v JAC Ecom Ltd. and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303933/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms. M. Gorska
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing for case management on 22 August 2025, Employment Judge Tinnion recorded that the Claimant's complaints in the ET1 were dismissed following their withdrawal. The claims listed in the judgment were unfair dismissal under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an alleged failure to make appropriate deductions of income tax and National Insurance contributions from wages, an alleged failure to set up a workplace pension, and an alleged failure to provide an appropriate P45.
The judgment does not record any contested findings on liability or remedy. It records only that the complaints were withdrawn at the hearing and then dismissed, with no monetary award made and no further legal analysis stated in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following withdrawal at the preliminary hearing for case management on 22 August 2025. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint about alleged failure to make appropriate deductions of income tax and National Insurance contributions was dismissed following withdrawal at the preliminary hearing for case management on 22 August 2025. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about alleged failure to set up a workplace pension was dismissed following withdrawal at the preliminary hearing for case management on 22 August 2025. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about alleged failure to provide an appropriate P45 was dismissed following withdrawal at the preliminary hearing for case management on 22 August 2025. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.