Case 2405045/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Zmuda v Rayburn Trading Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405045/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Zmuda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Sharkett on 5 April 2023. The claimant did not attend, despite attempts by the tribunal to contact him by phone and email and despite an earlier warning at the previous preliminary hearing. The respondent relied on the claimant's non-compliance with case management orders made on 13 February 2023, including an order to provide further information about any potential claims.
Employment Judge Sharkett held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service. The judge also found that the claimant had not shown any reason why the ordinary unfair dismissal service requirement should not apply.
To the extent that any other claim could be discerned from the grounds of complaint, the judge held that it had no prospect of success because no further information had been provided. The claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a), and the final hearing listed for 31 August to 2 September 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service and had not shown any basis for exempting that requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to possible claims under the whistleblowing provisions and says that, to the extent any other claim could be discerned from the grounds of complaint, it had no prospect of success in the absence of further information. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Rules of Procedure
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.