Case 3303806/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Cetin v Mr D.E and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303806/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms I Cetin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's complaints concerned the respondents reporting her to the police for alleged breach of previous anonymity orders and taking County Court enforcement action relating to a costs order from earlier tribunal proceedings. She characterised those matters as victimisation, harassment on grounds of sex and race, and breach of contract.
The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract complaint because the alleged breaches occurred in November 2023 and March 2024, years after the claimant's employment ended on 30 June 2017, and therefore did not arise or remain outstanding on termination. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint.
For victimisation and harassment, the tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest but found no reasonable prospect that a tribunal would conclude the police report or costs enforcement action was motivated by a protected act, sex, or race, rather than by enforcement of previous tribunal orders. The claim was dismissed under rule 28.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under rule 28 because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the alleged breaches occurred years after the claimant's employment ended and did not arise or remain outstanding on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed under rule 28 because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that the police report or costs enforcement action was motivated by a protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed under rule 28 because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that the police report or costs enforcement action was because of the claimant's sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed under rule 28 because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that the police report or costs enforcement action was because of the claimant's race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- rule 28 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Short v Birmingham City Council and ors
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland
- section 3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Onu v Akwiwu
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.