Case 2602220/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sobiesiak v Kaby Engineers Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602220/2019
- Decision date
- 1 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sobiesiak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Leicester on 1 November 2019 before Employment Judge Adkinson, with the claimant appearing in person and Ms Murphey for the respondent, the tribunal dealt with a breach of contract claim and an application concerning a proposed direct race discrimination claim. The written record states that the claimant’s breach of contract claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also allowed the claimant to amend his claim to bring a direct race discrimination claim under Equality Act 2010 section 13 and Part 5. The respondent’s application to strike out that amended claim under rule 37(1)(a) was dismissed. The judgment records a procedural ruling only on that issue and does not contain any merits finding on the race discrimination claim or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant’s breach of contract claim was dismissed. The judgment does not record any contractual award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal permitted the claimant to amend to bring a claim for direct race discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 13 and Part 5, and dismissed the respondent’s strike-out application under rule 37(1)(a). The judgment does not determine the merits of the race discrimination claim. | Other | Race | — |
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.