Case 2406253/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Nita v Adelie Foods Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406253/2019
- Decision date
- 27 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Nita
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 September 2019 before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan, the claimant was absent and his attendance was not excused. The respondent, Adelie Foods Ltd, was represented by Ms S. Pollock, HR Manager.
The Tribunal did not determine any substantive employment claims. It rejected the claim presented on 17 June 2019 because the claim form failed to supply the minimum information required. In particular, the form did not include an early conciliation number, and did not confirm that the claim did not constitute relevant proceedings or that an early conciliation exemption applied.
No remedy was awarded and no liability findings were made on the pleaded issues. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Tribunal rejected the claim presented on 17 June 2019 because the claim form did not contain an early conciliation number, and did not confirm that the claim did not constitute relevant proceedings or that an early conciliation exemption applied. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.