Case 3200478/2022 · Employment Tribunal
C Ozkutan (solicitor) For the v R McCartney (solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200478/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Ozkutan (solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied on 16 June 2022 to strike out the claim, arguing that no valid Early Conciliation certificate had been filed with the ET1 and that when a valid certificate was later filed the ET1 was not represented. The claimant said an EC certificate had been filed with the original claim on 4 February 2022 naming Entain Limited as the proposed respondent, which he had understood to be the correct respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The respondent's strike-out application was refused; the tribunal held the claim was not struck out and had been properly issued after the EC certificate and review issue was addressed. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's strike-out application was refused; the tribunal held the claim was not struck out and had been properly issued after the EC certificate and review issue was addressed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ET (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, Rules 2A and 3
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.