Case 2406153/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Brejwo v Cyclesport North Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406153/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tom Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Brejwo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 24 January 2020 before Employment Judge Tom Ryan, the tribunal struck out the claims brought under sections 99, 47C and 80H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The stated reason was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine those claims, so they were not allowed to proceed on the merits.
The respondent also applied to strike out the claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. That application was refused, so the section 18 claim remained live after this preliminary decision. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim under section 99 ERA 1996 was struck out on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim under section 47C ERA 1996 was struck out on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Flexible working | The claim under section 80H ERA 1996 was struck out on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim was refused. The decision does not determine the claim on its merits. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.