Case 2417538/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Zbigniew Marzec 1st v YPG Developments Ltd 2nd Respondent: Perennial Management Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417538/2020
- Decision date
- 30 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Zbigniew Marzec 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely on 22 and 24 March 2021 before Employment Judge Ord. The written record states that the claimant, Mr Zbigniew Marzec, was represented by a solicitor and the respondents were represented by counsel. An interpreter attended on both hearing days.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent, YPG Developments Ltd, as not well founded. It held that the unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent, Perennial Management Ltd, was well founded and succeeded. This short record does not set out the tribunal’s reasoning beyond those outcomes.
The judgment record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No remedy figure is recorded in the written record supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent, YPG Developments Ltd. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent, Perennial Management Ltd. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.