Case 2600696/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Koncar v Autocraft Drivetrain Solutions Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600696/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Koncar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Koncar did not attend the hearing at Lincoln on 15 May 2024. Autocraft Drivetrain Solutions Group was represented by Ms S Harty, Counsel, and Employment Judge McTigue sat alone. The written judgment records that the claimant's claim was dismissed in its entirety under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The decision does not set out separate merits findings on the breach of contract, race discrimination, or unfair dismissal complaints. It records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties. No monetary award is stated in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record dismisses the entirety of the claimant's claim under Rule 47; no separate merits reasons are given for this head of claim in the written decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written record dismisses the entirety of the claimant's claim under Rule 47; no separate merits reasons are given for this head of claim in the written decision. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record dismisses the entirety of the claimant's claim under Rule 47; no separate merits reasons are given for this head of claim in the written decision. | 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.