Case 3212757/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Matoshi v Integration Support Services — 2023
- Case reference
- 3212757/2020
- Decision date
- 8 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Matoshi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at East London Hearing Centre over 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 August 2023 before Employment Judge B Beyzade. The claimant, Ms M Matoshi, appeared in person and the respondent, Integration Support Services, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. It also dismissed the claimant’s complaint under section 38 and Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002, which related to an alleged failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a statement of changes under section 4 of that Act. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under section 38 and Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002, alleging failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 ERA 1996 and a statement of changes under section 4 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.