Case 2603141/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Matyka v Sports Direct.com Retail Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603141/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Blackwell Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mr G Edmondson, Mrs L Lowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Matyka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16, 17 and 18 November 2020 at Nottingham, Employment Judge J Blackwell sat with Mr G Edmondson and Mrs L Lowe. The tribunal's unanimous decision was not to determine the merits of Miss Matyka's claim at that stage, but to adjourn the case part-heard so that it could be resumed before the same tribunal on a date to be fixed.
The reasons record that on the third day Miss Matyka became gradually more upset, and after two breaks and the lunch adjournment the tribunal considered she was not fit to continue. The respondent proposed dealing with the remaining cross-examination by written questions, but the tribunal found Miss Matyka was not able to manage that either. Because 19 November 2020 had been allocated as decision day and was not available as a hearing day, the tribunal considered it had no alternative but to adjourn.
The tribunal also recorded two concerns: first, Miss Matyka's health and whether it was in her interests to continue pursuing the claim, and second, that her cross-examination had not yet been directed to the issues the tribunal had to decide. It noted that she was a litigant in person and had a very limited understanding of English, and it balanced those difficulties against the respondent's irrecoverable costs and Miss Matyka's mental condition. No substantive liability or remedy finding was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not determine any substantive claim. The tribunal ordered that the case be adjourned part-heard to be resumed before the same tribunal at a later date. | 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.