Case 2419673/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Szeliski v Flight Club Darts Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2419673/2020
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Case
- Venue
- Manchester via hybrid hearing
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Szeliski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Szeliski brought claims against Flight Club Darts Limited for automatic unfair dismissal said to arise from a protected disclosure made on 17 October 2020, three claims of unauthorised deductions, and a breach of contract claim for notice pay. The hearing took place at Manchester via hybrid hearing on 14, 15 and 16 August 2023 before Employment Judge Dennehy.
The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the claims for unauthorised deductions concerning extra wages, accrued holiday pay of 8.3 days, and SSP for 07 days, together with the breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim said to arise from a protected disclosure made on 17 October 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions relating to payment for extra wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions relating to payment for accrued holiday pay of 8.3 days. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions relating to SSP payment for 07 days. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract for failure to pay notice pay. | 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.