Case 2418218/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ego Restaurants Holdings Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418218/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Sitting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Russell sat alone in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 28 May 2021 in the claim brought by Ms Marzanna Pozdzial against Ego Restaurants Holdings Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant advanced claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract and breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal dismissed all of the claims. Its central finding was that the claimant had not been dismissed. The judgment states that a P45 had been issued in error and that the claimant remained employed by the respondent on a zero-hours contract.
Because the tribunal found that the employment relationship continued, it rejected the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. For the same reason, it found there was no breach of contract and no breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had not been dismissed; a P45 had been issued in error and she remained employed on a zero-hours contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had not been dismissed and therefore rejected the wrongful dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was not in breach of the claimant's contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the respondent was not in breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | 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.