Case 2415169/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Michalowska v Mr J Eagle T/A AC Cleaning Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415169/2021
- Decision date
- 15 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Michalowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Ms M Michalowska's claims for a redundancy payment, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and failure to pay holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because she remained employed by Mr J Eagle T/A AC Cleaning Services Ltd. On that basis, all claims were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The judgment states that written reasons would only be provided if requested in writing within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the redundancy payment claim because the claimant remained employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the notice pay claim because the claimant remained employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the holiday pay claim under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because the claimant remained employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.