Case 3307857/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joao De Jesus Junior v Cote Restaurants Ltd – 1st Mr Rexhep Seferi – 2nd Cote Restaurants Group Ltd – 3rd Greenfield Food Supply Ltd – 4th PRELIMINARY HEARING By Telephone — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307857/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Joao De Jesus Junior
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Bedeau on 17 March 2023. The tribunal dealt with respondent identity rather than the merits of any discrimination or dismissal claim. No lay members are listed in the judgment.
At the claimant's request, Cote Restaurants Ltd and Cote Restaurants Group Ltd were dismissed from the proceedings because the tribunal recorded that they were not the claimant's employer. The judgment states that Greenfield Food Supply Ltd was the claimant's employer and therefore the correct respondent.
Mr Rexhep Seferi remained an individual respondent in the proceedings. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability, remedy, or compensation, and no legal tests are named in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal did not determine a substantive liability claim; it dismissed Cote Restaurants Ltd and Cote Restaurants Group Ltd from the proceedings at the claimant's request because they were not the claimant's employer, and recorded that Greenfield Food Supply Ltd remained the correct respondent. Mr Rexhep Seferi remained an individual respondent. | Other | — | — |
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.