Case 2601881/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bartosz Isbrandt v Keystone Lintels Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601881/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bartosz Isbrandt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Clark, sitting alone, struck out the claimant’s case on 19 March 2025 because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment states that the claims had already been the subject of an earlier, valid COT3 settlement reached with the assistance of ACAS.
No separate merits findings are recorded. The tribunal did not go on to determine liability for the underlying unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, or public interest disclosure claims because the existence of the valid settlement meant the claims could not proceed before the Employment Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because the claims had already been the subject of a valid COT3 settlement reached with the assistance of ACAS. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because the claims had already been the subject of a valid COT3 settlement reached with the assistance of ACAS. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because the claims had already been the subject of a valid COT3 settlement reached with the assistance of ACAS. | 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.