Case 2418022/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Chodkiewicz v Pochin's Ltd (in administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2418022/2018
- Decision date
- 25 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tom Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Chodkiewicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Rule 21 judgment in which the Employment Tribunal recorded that the claim succeeds. The judgment does not set out findings of fact or the legal basis for the success in the extracted text provided. It also does not record any final remedy at this stage.
The judgment states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. No monetary award is identified in the judgment text supplied, and no split between heads of loss is given. The only expressed outcome is that the claim succeeds.
On the information in the published judgment text and the accompanying case listing categories, the matter concerned disability discrimination and race discrimination. However, the extracted judgment text itself does not specify separate findings for each claim, so the record is limited to the general success of the claim and the postponement of remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records only that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 and that remedy will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. The judgment text itself does not specify the claim particulars. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records only that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 and that remedy will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. The judgment text itself does not specify the claim particulars. | Upheld | Race | — |
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.