Case 2600779/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Z Nagy v Exclusive Contract Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600779/2020
- Decision date
- 30 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Z Nagy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing at Nottingham on 9 March 2021 before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Mr Ellison, Consultant.
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, and breach of contract. The reason given was that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. No factual findings were made on the merits of the claims.
The hearing listed for 6, 7 and 8 April 2021 was vacated. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaint of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.