Case 3201235/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Medrysa v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201235/2020
- Decision date
- 30 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Medrysa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the parties' submissions on the claimant's contention that the respondent failed to follow the Greater London Provincial Council agreement with recognised trade unions when carrying out, or not carrying out, a job evaluation for the Debt Recovery Officer job description.
Employment Judge Lewis found there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that the respondent was contractually obliged to follow the GLPC procedure. The Tribunal also found that, on the claimant's case, any failure to follow the job evaluation procedure occurred before the claimant's employment began, and there was no reasonable prospect of establishing an ongoing breach.
The Tribunal concluded that allowing this contention to proceed would add disproportionately and unnecessarily to hearing preparation, time allocation, and the documents to be considered. The claimant's remaining contentions in his constructive unfair dismissal claim were left to proceed, subject to any separate deposit orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claimant's contention that the respondent's alleged failure to follow the GLPC job evaluation procedure amounted to a breach of contract or contributed to a fundamental breach of contract. It was a part strike-out; remaining contentions in the constructive unfair dismissal claim were not determined in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect
- overriding objective
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.