Case 2503485/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Popko v The Dolphin and 4 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 2503485/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicol Representation
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mr A Popko
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment dealing with respondent identity and the claimant's entitlement to bring claims. The tribunal found that there had been successive transfers of undertaking, so the claimant had completed more than two years' continuous service and was therefore entitled to bring a complaint that he was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant's continuous employment ended on 20 September 2018 and that, at that time, he was employed by the third respondent, Mrs R Errington. It held that she was the correct respondent in respect of all of the claimant's complaints.
The complaints against the first, second and fourth respondents were dismissed because they were trading names and/or were not the claimant's employer at the relevant times. The tribunal expressly noted that, apart from those points, it had not given any indication as to the eventual outcome of any of the claimant's complaints.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that successive transfers of undertaking meant the claimant had more than two years' continuous service and was entitled to bring a complaint that he was unfairly dismissed. It did not decide the merits of that complaint and stated that it was not in a position to give any indication as to the eventual outcome of any of the claimant's complaints. | Other | — | — |
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.