Case 3307578/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Victoria Filmore-McGorian v Victor Vasilievich Gutsul and Natalia Gutsul and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307578/2020
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs A Brown, Mr J Appleton
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mrs Victoria Filmore-McGorian
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Reading on 19 and 20 August 2024 before Employment Judge McCooey with Mrs A Brown and Mr J Appleton, gave a unanimous judgment striking out all of the claimant's remaining complaints. The claimant appeared in person on 19 August and did not attend on 20 August. The respondent attended through Natalia Gutsul and Victoria Gutsul.
The complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid wages and holiday pay were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal held they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not record any award of compensation or other remedy for those claims.
The complaints of religious discrimination, age discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination, and public interest disclosure were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c), (d) and (e). The tribunal said the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order, that those claims had not been actively pursued, and that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of them. No remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this complaint as unpaid wages; it was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c), (d) and (e) because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Rules or an order, the claim had not been actively pursued, and a fair hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c), (d) and (e) because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Rules or an order, the claim had not been actively pursued, and a fair hearing was no longer possible. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(e)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.