Case 2404554/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Cisowska v Optimal Claim Limited T/A Optimal Solicitors — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404554/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Cisowska
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 September 2023, the tribunal gave Miss N Cisowska an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing before any strike-out, on the basis that she had not replied to the tribunal's letter of 10 May 2023 in time. The tribunal also noted that the claim, described by the claimant as being about a defamatory reference, appeared to be a matter the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide.
The tribunal further recorded that any claim of unfair dismissal indicated in section 8.1 of the claim form could not be pursued because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service. It also considered that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
Miss N Cisowska did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment was sent to the parties on 4 December 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole. In its reasons, it said the claimant had described the matter as being about a defamatory reference, which appeared to be outside the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction, and it also noted that any unfair dismissal claim indicated on the claim form could not be pursued because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service. | Struck out | — | — |
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.