Case 3302649/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Kightley v SIKA Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302649/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Kightley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr O Kightley, brought proceedings against SIKA Limited that the tribunal said were not entirely clear. Employment Judge Postle identified five possible Employment Rights Act 1996 claims: time off for dependants under section 57A, leave for family reasons under section 99, the statutory right to request contract variation under section 80F, flexible working under section 104C, and assertion of a statutory right under section 104.
The tribunal dismissed all of those claims as having no reasonable prospect of success. It recorded that the claimant's pleaded case appeared only to concern refusal of a flexible working application, but nevertheless treated the wider list of possible statutory claims as falling for dismissal on the same basis. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Tribunal took the view the claimant may have been making a claim under section 57A ERA 1996 (time off for dependants). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Tribunal took the view the claimant may have been making a claim under section 99 ERA 1996 (leave for family reasons). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Tribunal took the view the claimant may have been making a claim under section 80F ERA 1996 (statutory right to request contract variation). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Flexible working | Tribunal took the view the claimant may have been making a claim under section 104C ERA 1996 (flexible working). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Tribunal took the view the claimant may have been making a claim under section 104 ERA 1996 (assertion of statutory right). | 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.