Case 2402564/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lewandowski v Mach Recruitment Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402564/2021
- Decision date
- 23 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lewandowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing at Manchester on 22 August 2022. The respondent was represented by a legal executive, and the Tribunal accepted the Response.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated reasons were that the claimant had failed to attend the hearing and had failed to respond to correspondence or otherwise pursue his claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend and failed to respond to correspondence or otherwise pursue the claim. The judgment text does not set out the factual allegations or merits; classification follows the listed case category. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the claim under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend and failed to respond to correspondence or otherwise pursue the claim. The judgment text does not set out the factual allegations or merits; classification follows the listed case category. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.