Case 2402738/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wasilewski v United Springs Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402738/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- S Humphreys, D Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wasilewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 3 to 6 January 2023 before Employment Judge Batten with lay members S Humphreys and D Lancaster. The claimant, Mr M Wasilewski, appeared in person and the respondent, United Springs Limited, was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment was that the claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. The judgment also records that the disability discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons would not be provided unless a request had been made at the hearing or a written request was presented within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim failed and was dismissed, but the extracted text does not set out the particular statutory allegations or reasoning. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.